A large body of literature exists that focuses on or is related to the Connected Mathematics Project. Here, you will find lists of writings on CMP that we have compiled over the past several years. We include:
- Research reports on the effectiveness of CMP
- Research in which CMP classrooms served as the context for studies
- Comparative studies on different aspects of mathematics curricula
- Writings on the development and revision of CMP by the authors of CMP
- Books and book chapters, dissertations, research articles and reports, conference proceedings, and essays
We update the lists at least annually based on thorough reviews of the literature. Many of these readings are available online or through your local library system. A good start is to paste the title of the publication into your search engine. Please contact us if you have a suggestion for a reading that is not on the list, or if you need assistance locating a reading.
Several themes have emerged from existing literature on CMP. Here are some important points to consider when adopting and implementing the CMP curriculum:
- Compared to their peers using traditional middle school math curricula, students in CMP classrooms typically do as well on assessments of procedures and skills, and score significantly higher on open-ended problems requiring modeling, mathematical reasoning, and/or articulating their thinking (Ben-Chaim, Fey, Fitzgerald, Benedetto, & Miller, 1997; Cai, Moyer, Hwang, Nie, & Garger, 2012; Cain, 2002; Conklin, Grant, Rickard, & Rivette, 2006; Covington Clarkston, 2001; Eddy et al., 2008; Reys, Reys, Lapan, Holliday, & Wasman, 2003).
- The effects of using CMP on student learning increase over time. That is, it can take awhile to see evidence of improvement in student learning. Within schools, students’ performance typically improves more after multiple years of using CMP (Bray, 2005; O’Clair, 2005; Reys et al., 2003; Tarr et al., 2008).
- Successful implementation of problem-centered curricula like CMP is influenced by several factors, including teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching, teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and instruction, administrative support, and commitment to instructional practices recommended in recent math education literature, such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Principles and Standards (2000) (Arbaugh, Lannin, Jones, & Park Rogers, 2006; Bay, 1999; Charalambos, Hill, & Mitchell, 2012; Choppin, 2009; Eddy et al., 2008; Garrison, 2013; King et al., 2011).
- This evidence points to the need for consistent and sustained professional development and collaboration between teachers and administrators in a variety of forms (Heck, Banilower, Weiss, & Rosenberg, 2008; O’Clair, 2005).