The Effect of Constructivist Mathematics on Achievement in Rural Schools

By: Michael Grady, Sandra Watkins, and Greg Montalvo

Marquetta Strait September 26, 2013 EDUC: 327: Elementary Education Curriculum and Assessment Mrs. Wright Article Critique

M. Strait|2

Marquetta Strait September 26, 2013 EDUC: 327: Elementary Education Curriculum and Assessment Mrs. Wright Article Critique # 1

The Effect of Constructivist Mathematics on Achievement in Rural Schools

By: Michael Grady, Sandra Watkins, and Greg Montavlo

Michael Grady , Sandra Watkins , & Greg Montalvo, (2012). The effect of constructivist mathematics on achievement in rural schools. The Rural Educator,33(3), 37-45. Compared to other industrialized countries, students of the United States are not at the level of proficiency that they need to be. Our education system is constantly being reformed through new curriculums or programs that are created to close the achievement gap and increase motivation within students. In The Effect of Constructivist Mathematics on Achievement in Rural Schools journal article, three leaders within the education field conduct an experiment on increasing the academic performance within rural schools. Within their study, they examine three districts with three specified curriculums. Michael Grady, Sandra Watkins, and Greg Montavlo measure the increase of success by studying a school district that has received seven years of the K- 6 Everyday Mathematics , a district that has received seven years of instruction using a traditional mathematics curriculum, and a third district that uses a traditional curriculum supplemented with Mountain Math (Michael Grady, Sandra Watkins & Greg Montalvo, 2012). The three school districts were selected based on the length of time the students had been exposed to the schools curriculum.

M. Strait|3

According to the developers of Everyday Mathematics, which is based at the University of Chicago, this curriculum emphasizes on the use of concrete, real-life examples, repeated exposures to mathematics, frequent practice of basic computation skills, and the use of multiple methods and problem-solving strategies (The Authors of Everyday Mathematics). Another

program that is discussed in the article is Mountain Math. This program is a review program that supplements whatever program teachers are using. Mountain Math and Mountain Language are not a total program. They are to be used to aid in review and retention of previously taught concepts. Mountain Math and Mountain Language will decrease the time a teacher needs to spend on computational and language skills. A teacher can spend 10-15 minutes a day using Mountain Math and/or Mountain Language to keep concepts fresh.

Mountain Math and Mountain Language are flexible teaching tools; they allow teachers to incorporate them with their individual teaching styles. They can be used as a class activity, an individual activity, with partners, or in cooperative learning groups (Mountain Math/Language). Both of these programs are seen as beneficial to learning because they apply to the constructivist approach of mathematics, which is that mathematics should be an active process. Everyday Mathematics was compared to the traditional approach on student achievement within third through fifth grades in a large, urban Texas school district (Michael Grady, Sandra Watkins & Greg Montalvo, 2012). Through the first study, the results showed that students taught using the Everyday Mathematics scored on average 3.9 points higher than the traditionally taught students. On the other hand, some researchers feel that Everyday Mathematics should not be the curriculum of choice. One researcher claims that the curriculum omits skills and topics that are detrimental to students, which in turn, can leave students unprepared for higher level mathematics topics that will be taught in middle and high schools.

M. Strait|4

Knowing what the researchers knew about the urban schools using the Everyday Mathematics, they wanted to study how rural schools would be affected with the implementation of this program. The two districts that used a more traditional approach were selected because their textbook series encouraged teachers to follow a traditional lesson sequence. In these types of lessons, students were shown how to solve problems by their teachers and then given time to practice similar problems. The first district, School A, used the K-6 Everyday Mathematics and had classes that were not ability grouped. The second district, School B, used a textbook series The

that was geared towards direct instruction and had classes that were not ability grouped.

teachers were given a step-by-step process, which included the lecturing, modeling, solving examples, guided practice, independent practice, and homework. The third district, School C, used a textbook series that was geared towards direct instruction. The teachers were given a step-by-step process, guided and independent practice, and a lesson quiz to assess the students comprehension. In addition to the direct approach, Mountain Math was used to supplement the lesson. To determine the effect of the Everyday Mathematics curriculum in rural schools, the 2006 and 2007 sixth grade Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) math scores were analyzed (Michael Grady, Sandra Watkins & Greg Montalvo, 2012). The analysts compared not only the districts curricula, but they also compared the scores by ethnicity, gender, and special education status. In 2006, the district that used the traditional instruction and Mountain Math and Everyday Mathematics was the lowest. In 2007, the district that used traditional

mathematics was the highest, with Everyday Mathematics still coming in third place. In the ethnicity comparison, Caucasians did better in traditional and Mountain Math and NonCaucasians did better in traditional mathematics. In the gender comparison, the males did better

M. Strait|5

in traditional and Mountain Math and the females did better in traditional mathematics. In the special education comparison, both IEP and non-IEP students did better in traditional and Mountain Math. The results concluded that students learned better using traditional

mathematics with Mountain Math. As an educator, it is important to know what is beneficial and effective while working with your students. It is possible to reform education, but just like the findings of the above mentioned study, the achievement will not happen overnight. This is mainly attributed to

students learning in a particular fashion. Changing the method drastically from what they are used to may cause conflict and confusion to students. I do not believe that there is only one curriculum that will be effective for all students. It is important to provide ample practice to students, no matter the curriculum. I believe the reason the students did so well with the traditional instruction and the Mountain Math is because instruction is normally presented in this way. Mountain Math serves as a supplementary instruction that reinforces the learning that students will have in the classroom. With this extra practice, the students are provided more learning opportunities. This article was very resourceful to me because I plan to study Curriculum and Instruction in graduate school. I am interested in comparing curriculums and making them more effective. While doing this, it is important to use supplementary instruction to reinforce the Although many students are used to traditional

content that is being taught to students.

instruction, there is still room for more strategies and techniques that can increase the motivation, learning opportunities, and close the achievement gap. The Common Core State Standards are emulating these goals by having standards that are designed to be challenging, yet relevant to the

M. Strait|6

real world. Hopefully the United States education system will be reformed and the students will perform at a higher level of proficiency.

M. Strait|7

Bibliography

Michael Grady. , Sandra Watkins, , & Greg Montalvo, (2012). The effect of constructivist mathematics on achievement in rural schools. The Rural Educator,33(3), 37-45. Mountain Math/Language. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.mtmath.com/index2.php?req=intro The Authors of Everyday Mathematics. (n.d.). Everyday mathematics resource and information center. Retrieved from http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/about/understanding-em/