Schneider, C. L. (2000). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3004373).
Reviewed: January 2017
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Connected Mathematics Project (CMP).
Reviewed: January 2010
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Connected Mathematics Project (CMP).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) Pass Rate |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
1996-1999 |
Grades 6 and 7;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The participating schools were located in rural, suburban, and urban, as well as both low and high socioeconomic, areas of Texas. The schools varied in the English language learner status of the student populations that they served. Many of the schools had predominantly minority student populations.
The study included three cohorts from 23 CMP schools and 25 matched comparison schools overall. However, because baseline equivalence was established only for cohorts 1 and 2 through 1998, the WWC excluded cohort 3 from this review.1 Cohort 1 included more than 3,000 CMP students and 2,600 comparison students. Cohort 2 included more than 3,400 CMP students and 2,900 comparison students.
Schools in the treatment group used CMP, starting with grade 6 in 1996–97, adding grade 7 in 1997–98, and adding grade 8 in 1998–99. Cohorts in the school-level analysis represented all students in grades using CMP, regardless of whether the students were enrolled every year of implementation. By 1998, students in cohort 1 had received the intervention for up to two years (grades 6 and 7), and students in cohort 2 had received the intervention for one year (grade 6). There was substantial variation in the extent to which the curriculum was used at each grade level and each year across these schools.
Schools in the comparison group did not use CMP. The author did not report the mathematics curricula used by comparison schools. The 25 comparison schools were matched to treatment schools using a regression analysis of variables that predicted 1996 Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) passing rates.
The primary outcome measure included in this review was the school-level passing rate on the mathematics portion of the TAAS.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube