The differing effects of textbook problem-solving practices on high and low achieving students.

摘要

This study explored achievement trends in mathematics for Iowa high and low achieving students, for grades 4 through 7, for years 1972 through 1998, with a primary focus on a possible relationship between textbook problem solving practices and mathematics achievement.; Textbook problem solving practices were defined by previous University of Iowa dissertations. Achievement was defined by student performance on the three ITBS mathematics tests: problem solving, concepts, and computation. High achieving students were defined as those performing (on the ITBS) at the 90th percentile, and low achieving students were defined as those performing at the 10th percentile.; Shifts in achievement for high and low achieving students were examined for four periods, 1972–1978, 1979–1985, 1986–1991 and 1992–1998. Each of these periods is a time span covered by a common (identical) form of the ITBS. For each period, Iowa schools were identified that had given the same form of the ITBS at the same time in the school year. Scores from students were then secured for early in a given period and late in that period, from which achievement shifts for both high and low achievers were determined.; Among this study's conclusions are the following two: (1) Shifts in curricular practice have a more dramatic effect on low achievers than on high achievers. For example, from 1979 to 1985, as textbooks greatly increased emphasis on problem solving, 7th grade low achievers gained about 3 months in real school time, compared to about 1 month gained for high achievers; and, from 1992–1998, 7th grade low achievers lost about 6 months in real school time, compared to about 3 months lost for high achievers. (2) Not surprising, it appears that “more is better” (for both high and low achievers) regarding textbook emphasis on problem solving as an influence on student performance. (3) Recently, during the 1990s, relative to problem solving, high achievers performance remained relatively stable, while low achievers performance dropped.