Content deleted Content added
Made the paragraph separation in the Debate section more distinct. |
Minor wording change in the last sentence. Removed extra "and" and replace "problems" with "tasks." |
||
Line 25:
On the other hand, Key Curriculum Press, the publisher of IMP, points out “the IMP first edition was published after more than 10 years of research, pilot testing, evaluating, field testing, revising, and detailed reviewing.”<ref>[http://www.mathimp.org/downloads/IMPWhitePaper.pdf] “Research Supporting the Interactive Mathematics Program”</ref> Supporters point to statistical studies that compare the performance of students enrolled in IMP courses with their peers enrolled in traditional high school mathematics courses. Merlino and Wolff, two such researchers, report that in their several studies IMP students consistently outperformed traditionally taught students on both the math and verbal sections of the [[PSAT/NMSQT|PSAT]], as well as on the SAT-9.<ref>[http://www.gphillymath.org/StudentAchievement/Reports/SupportData/Part1Intro.htm] Merlino, J. and Wolff, E: ''Assessing the Costs/Benefits of an NSF “Standards-Based Secondary Mathematics Curriculum on Student Achievement'', Philadelphia, PA: The Greater Philadelphia Secondary Mathematics Project, 2001</ref> Kramer reported that grade 12 IMP students in his study performed better on all areas of mathematics tested by the NAEP test,<ref>[http://lmt.mspnet.org/media/data/IMP_block.pdf?media_000000002049.pdf] Kramer, S: “The Joint Impact of Block Scheduling and a Standards-Based Curriculum on High School Algebra Achievement and Mathematics Course Taking” (doctrinal dissertation), University of Maryland, 2003</ref> and Webb and Dowling reported IMP students performed significantly better on statistics questions from the Second International Mathematics Study, on mathematical
== Notes ==
| |||