First Edition Studies

Several quantitative studies have examined the impact of the first edition of Investigations on student learning and achievement.

The book Standards-based School Mathematics Curricula: What Are They? What Do Students Learn? (Senk and Thompson, 2003) provides analysis of research on K-12 Standards-based curricula. In the Investigations-specific chapter, Learning to Reason Numerically, Jan Mokros presents a summary of early quantitative studies focused on computation. The following studies are reviewed in this chapter:

  • Flowers, J. M. (1998). A study of proportional reasoning as it relates to the development of multiplication concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
  • Goodrow, A. M. (1998). Children's construction of number sense in traditional, constructivist, and mixed classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tufts University, Medford, MA. (For a summary see Modes of Teaching and Ways of Thinking.)
  • Mokros, J., Berle-Carmen, M., Rubin, A., & Wright, T. (1994). Full-year pilot grades 3 and 4: Investigations in Number, Data, and Space. Cambridge, MA: TERC.

For a brief overview of the above research, see:

To review a related study conducted during the initial field-testing of the curriculum, see:

Since Mokros’ review there have been several other large-scale student achievement studies.

  • The ARC Center Tri-State Student Achievement Study (ARC Center, 2003) provides evidence of positive impact. This large-scale study of three states, revealed that average scores of students in schools fully implementing Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, Math Trailblazers, or Everyday Math as their core mathematics curriculum were significantly higher than the average scores of students in matched comparison schools not using these curricula.
  • Using data from the original Tri-State Student Achievement study, Gatti (2004) compared the performance of Massachusetts’s students in schools fully implementing Investigations to students in schools from the original matched group in that state (schools not using Investigations, Math Trailblazers, or Everyday Math). Massachusetts was chosen because it had more Investigations users than any of the other states in the original ARC Center Study. The analysis revealed the same pattern of results. Students in schools fully implementing Investigations in Number, Data, and Space outperformed peers from the original set of matched schools.
  • As part of an on-going study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research for the U.S. Department of Education, performance of first grade students using four different curricula was compared. Of 118 districts fitting recruitment criteria and contacted by the researchers, 4 agreed to participate. In order to participate, school systems had to agree to have curricula randomly assigned to classrooms. After completing the first grade phase of the study, it was reported that students assigned to Investigations did not perform as well on the ECLS-K mathematics achievement measure as students assigned to two of the four curricula. The alignment of the ECLS-K to either the curricula under study or to state assessments is unknown. Most of the teachers in this study had taught only traditional curricula in the past five years, and none reported having used Investigations. There were substantial differences between schools assigned to each curriculum in the availability and use of mathematics specialists. Teachers assigned to teach Investigations had the least access to mathematics specialists compared to the other curricula studied. The researchers also reported that one of the higher performing curricula averaged one hour more of mathematics instruction per week than other curricula in the study. This study is designed to examine the impact of the four curricula on student achievement at several grade levels. In future work it is expected that the second rather than first edition of Investigations will be used.