Mathematics Teachers' Familiarity with Standards and Their Instructional Practices: 1995 and 1999.

Marisa Burian-Fitzgerald, Daniel J. McGrath, V. Plisko
{"title":"Mathematics Teachers' Familiarity with Standards and Their Instructional Practices: 1995 and 1999.","authors":"Marisa Burian-Fitzgerald, Daniel J. McGrath, V. Plisko","doi":"10.1037/e610352011-011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1995, half of the states (25) had content standards in mathematics; by 1998, this number had increased to 42 (Council of Chief State School Officers 2000). Forty-five states had student assessments in mathematics in 1994; by 1999, 47 states had such assessments. The existence of standards and assessments at the state level does not guarantee that classroom teachers are familiar with the standards or with the specifications of assessments (Cohen and Hill 2000). Neither does it guarantee that classroom instruction reflects the standards and assessments. In fact, mathematics standards have created significant controversy over the efficacy of different types of instruction for improving student performance (Loveless 2001, see, especially, Loveless chapter).","PeriodicalId":252919,"journal":{"name":"Education Statistics Quarterly","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Statistics Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e610352011-011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In 1995, half of the states (25) had content standards in mathematics; by 1998, this number had increased to 42 (Council of Chief State School Officers 2000). Forty-five states had student assessments in mathematics in 1994; by 1999, 47 states had such assessments. The existence of standards and assessments at the state level does not guarantee that classroom teachers are familiar with the standards or with the specifications of assessments (Cohen and Hill 2000). Neither does it guarantee that classroom instruction reflects the standards and assessments. In fact, mathematics standards have created significant controversy over the efficacy of different types of instruction for improving student performance (Loveless 2001, see, especially, Loveless chapter).
数学教师对标准的熟悉程度及其教学实践:1995年和1999年。
1995年,有一半的州(25个)制定了数学内容标准;到1998年,这一数字增加到42(2000年国家首席学校官员委员会)。1994年,45个州对学生进行了数学评估;到1999年,有47个州进行了这样的评估。州一级标准和评估的存在并不能保证课堂教师熟悉标准或评估规范(Cohen and Hill 2000)。它也不能保证课堂教学反映标准和评估。事实上,数学标准在不同类型的教学对提高学生成绩的效果上产生了重大的争议(Loveless 2001,特别参见Loveless章节)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信