![]() |
![]() |
||
|
Scientifically
Based Research |
The
study, conducted over the majority of a school year, compared a
computer-mediated "generative learning" intervention--The
Expert Mathematician (TEM)--vs. the UCSMP Transition Mathematics
textbook-based program. The two treatment groups of randomly assigned
students were taught by the same teacher, using a block schedule model.
While students were not officially receiving special ed. support, the
teacher indicated that most were "at-risk" for academic failure, though
technically, they were “mainstreamed." The finding that students in the TEM group came from behind to equalize total achievement with the well-regarded Transition Mathematics control treatment–while experimentally inadmissable–should not be disregarded. In fact, the novel intervention group did accomplish more than the traditional group in the same time period with the same teacher who was widely experienced in and enjoyed teaching the Transition Mathematics program. From a
scientific point of view, even after covarying out pretest differences,
TEM passed a crticial test of scientific merit: "First do no harm."
Although the teacher had no previous teaching experience with the TEM
program, the program's "producitivity" equalled that of a highly
regarded program in which the teacher was trained and experienced. A 7
dimension attitude survey probed students' changes on a variety of
psychological and social measures relating to the study of mathematics
at the then present time and into the future. While a sound
interpretive framework still needs to be developed for these affective
measures, the finding that the TEM media which afforded students
greater personal control over the hard work of learning is viewed by
students as significantly more favorable than those that do not, has
important implications for study.
Copyright
© James J. Baker. All rights reserved. |
||
![]() |
|||