WWWC Intervention Report U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION What
Works Clearinghouse Elementary School Math Effectiveness
Program Description1 February 2009 Investigations in
Number, Data, and Space® No studies of Investigations in
Number, Data, and Space® that fall within the scope of the
Elementary School Math review protocol meet What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies
meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time,
the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research
about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of
Investigations in Number, Data, and Space®. Investigations
in Number, Data, and Space®, published by Pearson Scott
Foresman, is an activity-based K–5 mathematics curriculum.
It is designed to help all students understand the
fundamental ideas of number and operations, geometry, data,
measurement, and early algebra. The curriculum encourages
students to use prior knowledge to develop an understanding
of fundamental mathematical ideas. Investigations in
Number, Data, and Space® is problem-centered and
de-emphasizes algorithms. Rather, the curriculum focuses on
activities that encourage students to develop their own
strategies for solving problems and engage in discussion
about their reasoning and ideas. The curriculum at each
grade level is organized into units that offer from two to
eight weeks of work focused on a particular content strand,
and students work in a variety of groupings, including
whole class, individually, in pairs, and in small groups.
The WWC identified 40 studies of Investigations in Number,
Data, and Space® that were published or released between
1994 and 2008. Seven studies are within the scope of the
review protocol and have an eligible design, but do not
meet WWC evidence standards because they do not establish
that the comparison group was comparable to the treatment
group prior to the start of the intervention. Seven studies
are out of the scope of the review protocol because they
have an ineligible study design that does not meet WWC
evidence standards, such as having no comparison group.
Twenty-six studies are out of the scope of the Elementary
School Math review protocol for reasons other than study
design. ␣␣ Two studies were conducted outside
the geographic area specified in the protocol.
␣␣ Twenty studies do not assess students’ math
achievement or are not studies of the effectiveness of
Investigations in Number, Data, and Space®. ␣␣
Four studies are literature reviews or meta-analyses in
which the author does not conduct a primary analysis of the
effec- tiveness of Investigations in Number, Data, and
Space®. 1. The descriptive information for this curriculum
was obtained from a publicly-available source at
http://investigations.terc.edu, downloaded October 2008.
The WWC requests developers to review the description for
accuracy from their perspective. Further verification of
the accuracy of the descriptive information for this
curriculum is beyond the scope of this review. WWC
Intervention Report Investigations in Number, Data, and
Space® February 2009 1 References Studies that fall outside
the Elementary School Math protocol or do not meet evidence
standards Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (1996).
Students’ understand- ing of three- dimensional rectangular
arrays of cubes. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 27(3), 258–292. The study is ineligible for
review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an
intervention. Additional sources: Battista, M. T., &
Clements, D. H. (1998). Students’ under- standing of three-
dimensional cube arrays: Findings from a research and
curriculum development project. In D. Chazan & R. Lehrer
(Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing
understanding of geometry and space (pp. 227– 248). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bay-Williams, J. M.,
Scott, M. B., & Hancock, M. (2007). Case of the mathematics
team: Implementing a team model for simultaneous renewal.
The Journal of Educational Research, 100(4), 243–253. The
study is ineligible for review because it does not examine
the effectiveness of an intervention. Bowen, E. W. (2006).
Accounting for agency in teaching math- ematics:
Understanding teachers’ use of reform curriculum.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, TN. The study is ineligible for review because
it does not include a student outcome. Bush, W. S. (2005).
Improving research on mathematics learning and teaching in
rural contexts. Journal of Research in Rural Edu- cation,
20(8), 20–28. The study is ineligible for review because it
is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an
intervention. Cai, J., Lew, H. C., Morris, A., Moyer, J.
C., Fong Ng, S., & Schmittau, J. (2005). The development of
students’ algebraic thinking in earlier grades: A cross-
cultural comparative per- spective. ZDM, 37(1), 5–15. The
study is ineligible for review because it does not include
a student outcome. Casey, B., Erkut, S., Ceder, I., &
Young, J. M. (2007). Use of a storytelling context to
improve girls’ and boys’ geometry skills in kindergarten.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol- ogy, 29, 29–48.
The study is ineligible for review because it is not a
primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.
Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a
frame- work for “research-based curricula”. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 38(1), 35–70. The study
is ineligible for review because it is not a primary
analysis of the effective- ness of an intervention. Ebby,
C. B. (2005). The powers and pitfalls of algorithmic knowl-
edge: A case study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
24(1), 73–87. The study is ineligible for review because it
does not use a comparison group. Essex, N. K. (2006).
Looking for gender differences in the math- ematical work
of elementary students. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 67(12A) 204–4489. (UMI No. 3243791) The
study is ineligible for review because it does not examine
the effectiveness of an intervention. Feger, S., & Zibit,
M. (2005). The role of facilitation in online professional
development: Engendering co-construction of knowledge.
Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.
The study is ineligible for review because it does not
include a student outcome. Fernandez, C., & Cannon, J.
(2005). What Japanese and US teachers think about when
constructing mathematics lessons: A preliminary
investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5),
481–498. The study is ineligible for review because it does
not include a student outcome. Flowers, J., Krebs, A. S., &
Rubenstein, R. N. (2006). Problems to deepen teachers’
mathematical understanding: Examples in multiplication.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(9), 478. The study is
ineligible for review because it does not include a student
outcome. WWC Intervention Report Investigations in Number,
Data, and Space® February 2009 2 References (continued)
Goodrow, A. (1998). Children’s construction of number sense
in traditional, constructivist, and mixed classrooms.
Disserta- tion Abstracts International, 59(04), 1055A. (UMI
No. 9828874) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards
because the intervention and comparison groups are not
shown to be equivalent at baseline. Hands, L. (2006). Using
classroom assessment to support growth of number sense in
first grade. In S. Z. Smith, D. S. Mewborn, & M. E. Smith
(Eds.), Teachers engaged in research: Inquiry into
mathematics classrooms, grades pre- K–2 (pp. 171–210).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publish- ing. The study is
ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison
group. Heinerikson, L. (2006). The effects of Scott
Foresman’s mathe- matical Investigations curriculum on
elementary standardized test scores. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO.
The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the
intervention and com- parison groups are not shown to be
equivalent at baseline. Hill, H. C. (2005). Content across
communities: Validating mea- sures of elementary
mathematics instruction. Educational Policy, 19(3),
447–475. The study is ineligible for review because it does
not examine the effectiveness of an intervention. Hundley,
K. L. (2006). Teacher efficacy in relation to mathematics
education reform: An examination of a professional develop-
ment study group of elementary teachers. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. The
study is ineli- gible for review because it does not
include a student outcome. Junk, D. L. (2006). Teaching
mathematics and the problems of practice: Understanding
situations and teacher reasoning through teacher
perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. The study is
ineligible for review because it does not include a student
outcome. Kamina, P. (2006). How fifth grade teachers used
Investigations in Number, Data, and Space®: A
standards-based curriculum. Paper presented at the 28th
Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of Math- ematics
Education (PME-NA), Merida, Mexico. The study is ineli-
gible for review because it does not include a student
outcome. Additional sources: Kamina, P. A. O. (2005).
Teachers’ perceptions and practices of inquiry- based
instruction: A case study of fifth grade “Investigations”
curriculum in an urban school. Disserta- tion Abstracts
International, 66(05A), 229–1684. Kamina, P., & Tinto, P.
(2005). Lesson study: A case of the “Investigations”
mathematics curriculum. Paper presented at the 27th Annual
Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathemat- ics Education
(PME-NA), Roanoke, VA. Klein, D. (2007). School math books,
nonsense, and the National Science Foundation. American
Journal of Physics, 75, 101–102. The study is ineligible
for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of
an intervention. Kniss, K. B. (2007). The effects of
Investigations in Number, Data, and Space® on the
performance of at-risk students. Masters Abstracts
International, 46(02), 68–605. The study is ineligible for
review because it does not use a comparison group. Lehrer,
R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argu-
ment in the elementary grades. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Car-
penter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and
science matters (pp. 29–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because
it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
McCormick, K. K. (2006). Examining the relationship between
a standards- based elementary mathematics curriculum and
issues of equity. Dissertation Abstracts International,
66(08A), 2872. The study does not meet WWC evidence
standards WWC Intervention Report Investigations in Number,
Data, and Space® February 2009 3 References (continued)
because the intervention and comparison groups are not
shown to be equivalent at baseline. Additional sources:
McCormick, K. K. (2005). Third- grade students, a
standards- based mathematics curriculum, and issues of
equity. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the
North Ameri- can Chapter of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA), Roanoke, VA.
Middleton, J. A., & Coleman, K. (2006). The development of
leadership in mathematics: Cases of urban reform. In A. B.
Danzig, K. M. Borman, B. A. Jones, & W. F. Wright (Eds.),
Learner-centered leadership: Research, policy, and practice
(pp. 131–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not
examine the effectiveness of an intervention. Mokros, J.
(2003). Learning to reason numerically: The impact of
Investigations. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.),
Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are
they? What do students learn? (pp. 109–131). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence E. Erlbaum Associates. (This reference is for one
of three separate studies included in the section: a study
of pro- portional reasoning.) The study does not meet WWC
evidence standards because the intervention and comparison
groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline. Mokros,
J. (2003). Learning to reason numerically: The impact of
Investigations. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.),
Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are
they? What do students learn? (pp. 109–131). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence E. Erlbaum Associates. (This reference is for one
of three separate studies included in the section:
children's con- struction of number sense.) The study does
not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention
and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at
baseline. Mokros, J. (2003). Learning to reason
numerically: The impact of Investigations. In S. L. Senk &
D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Stan- dards-based school mathematics
curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp.
109–131). Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence E. Erlbaum Associates.
(This reference is for one of three separate studies
included in the section: third- and fourth- grade students'
number skills.) The study does not meet WWC evidence
standards because the intervention and comparison groups
are not shown to be equivalent at baseline. Mokros, J.,
Berle-Carmen, M., Rubin, A., & Wright, T. (1994). Full year
pilot grades 3 and 4: Investigations in Number, Data, and
Space®. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from TERC website:
http://investigations.terc.edu/impact/impact-studies/pilot3
-4.cfm. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards
because the intervention and comparison groups are not
shown to be equivalent at baseline. Noble, T., Nemirovsky,
R., Wright, T., & Tierney, C. (2001). Experiencing change:
The mathematics of change in multiple environments. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Educa- tion, 32(1), 85–108. The
study is ineligible for review because it does not use a
comparison group. Reyes, W. G. (2007). How integrating
mathematics-based chil- dren’s literature into the
Investigations curriculum impacts students’ acquisition of
mathematical concepts and vocabulary in meaningful
contexts. Unpublished master’s thesis, State University of
New York College at Brockport, Brockport, NY. The study is
ineligible for review because it does not examine the
effectiveness of an intervention. Rosebery, A. S., Warren,
B., Ballenger, C., & Ogonowski, M. (2005). The generative
potential of students’ everyday knowledge in learning
science. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock
(Eds.), Understanding mathemat- ics and science matters
(pp. 55–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence WWC Intervention Report
Investigations in Number, Data, and Space® February 2009 4
References (continued) Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The study
is ineligible for review because it does not include an
outcome within a domain specified in the protocol. Ross, L.
G. (2003). The effects of a standards-based mathemat- ics
curriculum on fourth and fifth grade achievement in two
Midwest cities. Dissertation Abstracts International,
64(04), 1180A. (UMI No. 3088273) The study is ineligible
for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Schifter, D., Bastable, V., Russell, S. J., Seyferth, L., &
Riddle, M. (2008). Algebra in the K–5 classroom: Learning
opportunities for students and teachers. In C. E. Greenes &
R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in
school mathematics: 70th yearbook (pp. 263–267). Reston,
VA: National Council of Teach- ers of Mathematics. The
study is ineligible for review because it does not examine
the effectiveness of an intervention. Simpson, N. (2004).
Investigations in Number, Data, and Space® evidence for
success. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from New York City
PS6 PTA Web site: http://www.smfcsd.org/
math/validation.pdf. The study is ineligible for review
because it does not use a comparison group. Smith, M. E.
(2006). Introduction to the pre-K–2 volume. In S. Z. Smith,
D. S. Mewborn, & M. E. Smith (Eds.), Teachers engaged in
research: Inquiry into mathematics classrooms, grades
pre-K–2 (pp. 1–14). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing. The study is ineligible for review because it
is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an
intervention. Time, I. (2005). Math that matters. Hands On,
27(1), 1. The study is ineligible for review because it
does not examine the effec- tiveness of an intervention.
Triantos, L. M. (2005). The aftermath of implementing a
standards- based curriculum in a K–8 district: Is there a
correlation between hands-on instruction and math scores?
Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro,
NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not
use a comparison group. Vaisenstein, A. (2006). A look at a
child’s understanding of math- ematical ideas through his
representations. In S. Z. Smith, & M. E. Smith (Eds.),
Teachers engaged in research: Inquiry into mathematics
classrooms, grades pre-K–2 (pp. 95–108). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing. The study is ineli- gible for
review because it does not examine the effective- ness of
an intervention. Yelland, N. (2002). Creating microworlds
for exploring mathemat- ical understandings in the early
years of school. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
27(1&2), 77–92. The study is ineligible for review because
it does not take place in the geographic area specified in
the protocol. Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking
scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education,
48(3), 362–382. The study is ineligible for review because
it does not take place in the geographic area specified in
the protocol. WWC Intervention Report Investigations in
Number, Data, and Space® February 2009 5

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one