|
|
References
Studies that fall outside the Middle School Math protocol or do not meet evidence standards
Eaton, C. (2005). Sparking a revolution in teaching and learning. T.H.E. Journal, 33(1), 20–23. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
FitzPatrick, S. B. (2001). An exploratory study of the implementation of an educational technology in two eighth grade mathematics classes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(06), 2082A. (UMI No. 3016656) The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Houghton Mifflin Learning Technology. (n.d.). Destination Math: White paper and research. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://www.hmlt.hmco.com/downloads/
Whitepapers/Destination_Math_WP.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Interactive Educational Systems Design. (2007). Research on the NYC SIFE-Destination Math program. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Levenson, T., & De Long-Cotty, B. (2006). The impact of Destination Math on fifth grade mathematics skills: Final report. Boston, MA: Riverdeep, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Riverdeep, Inc. (2001). Analysis of state math test scores of Pender County (NC) middle school students. Unpublished report. (Available from Riverdeep, Inc., 100 Pine Street, Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA 94111). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Additional source:
Riverdeep, Inc. (2003d). Destination Math: Validation studies. San Francisco, CA: Author. (Study: Pender County School District, North Carolina).
Riverdeep, Inc. (2003a). Destination Math: Validation studies. San Francisco, CA: Author. (Study: Chipman Junior High School, Bakersfield, California). The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Riverdeep, Inc. (2003b). Destination Math: Validation studies. San Francisco, CA: Author. (Study: Highwood Hills Elementary School, St. Paul, Minnesota, and Charlotte Middle School, Rochester, New York). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Riverdeep, Inc. (2003c). Destination Math: Validation studies. San Francisco, CA: Author. (Study: Mitchell High School, Colorado Springs, Colorado). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Rivet, J. R. (2001). Student achievement in middle school mathematics: Computer assisted instruction versus traditional instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(09), 3164A. (UMI No. 3065841) The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review protocol.
Additional sources:
Riverdeep, Inc. (2002). Comparison study of Destination Math conducted in middle schools in Desert Sands (CA). (Available from Riverdeep, Inc., 100 Pine Street, Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA 94111).Riverdeep, Inc. (2003e). Destination Math: Validation studies. San Francisco, CA: Author. (Study: Desert Sands Unified School District, California).
Taepke, P. A. (2007). Effect of computer-aided instruction on grades in middle school algebra. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
