WWC review of this study

Student attainment in the Connected Mathematics curriculum.

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.

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    2,456
     Students
    , grades
    6-7

Reviewed: January 2017

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations
General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
ESSA
rating

Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)

Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 6, 7, 8;
2,456 students

8.78

8.77

No

--
More Outcomes

Balanced Assessment (BA)

Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 6, 7;
1,361 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Show Supplemental Findings

Balanced Assessment (BA)

Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 6;
500 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Balanced Assessment (BA)

Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 7;
861 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

  • Race
    Not specified
    100%
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Midwest, Northeast, West

Setting

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.

Study sample

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.

Intervention Group

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.

Comparison Group

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.

Support for implementation

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.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top