Ridgway, J. E., Zawojewski, J. S., Hoover, M. N., & Lambdin, D. V. (2002). In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 193–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6, 7, 8;
|
8.78 |
8.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Balanced Assessment (BA) |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6, 7;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Balanced Assessment (BA) |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Balanced Assessment (BA) |
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 7;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study was conducted in nine sites across the United States (five in the Midwest, two in the West, and two in the East). The authors do not indicate whether a site is a single school or school district.
The study sample consisted of sixth- and seventh-grade students in the 1994–95 school year and eighth-grade students in the 1995–96 school year. The intervention and comparison group participants were matched to the extent possible on ability, location, and diversity in student population. In five of the nine sites that participated in the study, only a small number of teachers were using CMP, so comparison classrooms were selected locally. At the four other sites, comparison classrooms were identified in alternate locations. At each site, pairs of classrooms were selected within each grade level to form the intervention group; one comparison classroom was selected for every pair of intervention classrooms. The 1994–95 sample included 338 sixth-grade students and 627 seventh-grade students from 36 classrooms (18 in each grade) who used the CMP curriculum and 162 sixth-grade students and 234 seventh-grade students from 18 comparison group classrooms (nine in each grade). The 1995–96 sample included 820 eighth-grade students from 14 classrooms using CMP and 275 students from seven comparison classrooms. The authors provided results by grade. For this review, student data were combined across grades; the effectiveness rating is based on the combined analyses for each outcome measure and presented in Appendix C. Although some intervention students in this combined analysis used CMP in a previous school year, the combined finding measures the effectiveness of receiving 1 year of the intervention because the pre-intervention measures were assessed at the beginning of same school year in which outcomes were measured. The authors did not report demographic characteristics of the study students.
Students in the intervention group used CMP as their core math curriculum. Specific details about how CMP was implemented in study schools are not provided by the authors. The sixth- and seventh-grade intervention students used CMP in the 1994–95 school year, and the eighth-grade intervention students used CMP in the 1995–96 school year. The sixth-grade students had no prior use of CMP; however, approximately three-fourths of the seventh- and eighth-grade students had used CMP in the previous year. The authors did not indicate which edition of CMP was used, but it was likely the first edition of CMP, since the study was conducted between 1994–96 and the second edition of CMP was not developed until 2000.
Students in the comparison group used commercially available mathematics textbooks. The authors did not provide the name of the comparison texts, nor did they provide details about how the comparison curricula were implemented in study schools. Teachers in the comparison group did not use the CMP curriculum and implemented their regular curriculum.
All CMP teachers attended a summer CMP workshop at Michigan State University. This workshop included sessions that involved teachers experiencing the curriculum as students as well as sessions to share methods and techniques for implementation. The authors indicate that they do not have information on how CMP materials were used in the classroom.
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.
Hoover, M., Zawojewski, J. S., & Ridgway, J. E. (1997). Effects of the Connected Mathematics Project on student attainment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
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