Cai, Jinfa; Wang, Ning; Moyer, John C.; Wang, Chuang; Nie, Bikai (2011). International Journal of Educational Research, v50 n2 p117-136. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ938481
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).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open-ended tasks total score |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 8;
|
575.00 |
565.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Problem-posing performance |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 11, bottom third subgroup;
|
0.11 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem-posing performance |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 11, middle third subgroup;
|
0.27 |
0.05 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem-posing performance |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 11;
|
1.56 |
0.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Open-ended tasks total score |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 7;
|
538.00 |
531.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Open-ended tasks total score |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6;
|
494.00 |
502.00 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 4% | |
| Black | 64% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 16% | |
| White | 15% |
| Hispanic | 16% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 84% |
The study was conducted in 14 middle schools, all of which were located in a single large, urban school district in the United States.
Seven middle schools that implemented CMP in grades 6–8 were selected for the study. Another seven middle schools in the district that were not implementing CMP were selected for the study’s comparison group, based on their similarity to the CMP schools on demographic characteristics. The study sample consisted of students who began sixth grade in fall 2005. Students in both the CMP and comparison groups were assessed in fall 2005 (at the beginning of sixth grade), and in spring 2006, spring 2007, and spring 2008 (at the end of each grade). The eighth-grade analytic sample, assessed in spring 2008, consisted of 606 students with an equal number of students and schools in the intervention and comparison groups. The analytic sample was about half the size of the baseline sample, which included 1,284 students. About 85% of the students in the baseline sample were minorities: 64% were African American, 16% were Hispanic, 4% were Asian, and 1% were Native American. The remaining 15% of the students were White. In addition, the CMP and comparison students were tracked into high school and outcomes were assessed at the end of each grade in ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades (spring 2009, spring 2010, and spring 2011). In the 10 high schools that were included in this follow-up sample, the CMP and comparison students were mixed together in the same classrooms and used the same (non-CMP) curricula. The eighth-grade findings are considered the main outcomes in this review and presented in Appendix C because they are the most immediate outcome measuring the 3 full years of CMP use. The sixth-, seventh-, and eleventh-grade outcomes are considered supplemental findings presented in Appendix D that do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness.
Students in the intervention schools used the first edition of CMP (version 1) as their core mathematics curriculum in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades in the 2005–06 through 2007–08 school years; specific details about how CMP was implemented in study schools are not provided by the authors.
Students in the comparison schools used one of several traditional mathematics curricula already in use in their schools during each grade (grades 6, 7, and 8); specific details about how the comparison curricula were implemented are not provided by the authors. The authors conducted detailed analyses on the curricular materials to examine differences between CMP and one of the curricula used by the comparison group (Glencoe). The authors noted that there were differences between CMP and non-CMP curriculum; notably, CMP emphasizes problem solving while the non-CMP curricula take a more traditional approach that focuses on concepts and procedures. The authors also indicate that there were some differences between the different non-CMP curricula, but the differences between the comparison curricula were not substantial since they took the same traditional approach to math instruction. The authors did not name the other math curricula used by students in the comparison group.
The authors did not provide any information on support for implementation.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Cai, J. (2014). Searching for evidence of curricular effect on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Some insights from the LieCal project. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 811–831.
Cai, J. (2015). Curriculum reform and mathematics learning: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Selected regular lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 71–92). Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Cai, J., Hwang, S., & Moyer, J. C. (2016) Mathematical problem posing as a measure of curricular effect on students’ learning: A response. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91(1), 9–10.
Cai, J., & Moyer, J. C. (2006). A conceptual framework for studying curricular effects on students’ learning: Conceptualization and design in the LieCal project. Poster presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the International Group of Psychology of Mathematics Education, Prague, Czech Republic.
Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., & Wang, N. (2013). Longitudinal investigation of the effect of middle school curriculum on learning in high school. In A. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), The proceedings of the 37th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 137–144). Kiel, Germany: The International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., Hwang, S., Nie, B., & Garber, T. (2013). Mathematical problem posing as a measure of curricular effect on students’ learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 57–69.
Cai, J., Nie, B., & Moyer, J. C. (2010). The teaching of equation solving: Approaches in standards-based and traditional curricula in the United States. Pedagogies, 5(3), 170–186.
Cai, J., Nie, B., Moyer, J. C., & Wang, N. (2014). Teaching mathematics using standards-based and traditional curricula: A case of variable ideas. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 391–415). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
Cai, J., Yujing N., & Hwang, S. (2015). Measuring change in mathematics learning with longitudinal studies: Conceptualization and methodological issues. In J. Middleton, J. Cai, & S. Hwang (Eds.), Large-scale studies in mathematics education (pp. 293–309). Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Hwang, S., Cai, J., Shih, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., & Nie, B. (2015). Longitudinally investigating the impact of curricula and classroom emphases on the algebra learning of students of different ethnicities. In J. Middleton, J. Cai, & S. Hwang (Eds.), Large-scale studies in mathematics education (pp. 45–60). Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
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