RESEARCH

EVIDENCE
BASE

HMH Into Math®

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt ® (HMH®) is committed
to developing innovative educational solutions and
professional services that are grounded in learning
science evidence and efficacy. We collaborate with
school districts and third-party research organizations
to conduct research that provides information to help
improve educational outcomes for students, teachers,
and leaders at the classroom, school, and district levels.
We believe strongly in a mixed-methods approach to
our research, an approach that provides meaningful
and contextualized information and results.
 TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION

2 CURRICULUM DESIGN AND STANDARDS

Intentional Design
Focused, Prioritized Content
Coherent Learning Progressions
Routines for Reasoning
Mathematical Habits of Mind
Embedded Language Development and Support

16 MATHEMATICS KNOWLEDGE AND TEACHING

Clear Goals to Focus Learning
Reasoning and Problem Solving
Mathematical Models and Representation
Mathematical Language and Communicating Mathematically
Purposeful Questions
Procedural Fluency
Conceptual Understanding and Procedural Fluency
Productive Perseverance
Evidence of Student Thinking

38 SUPPORTING ALL LEARNERS

Promoting Equity, Access, and Rigor for all Learners
Meeting the Needs of All Learners

45 ASSESSMENT, DATA, AND REPORTS

Monitoring Student Progress
Evaluation Student Achievement
Supporting Data-Driven Instructional Decisions

53 DIGITAL LEARNING EXPERIENCE

Best Practices in Digital Mathematics Learning
Increased Agency and a More Personalized Approach to Instruction

59 BLENDED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING & SERVICES

Continuum of Connected Professional Learning
Job-Embedded Coaching to Strengthen Teaching and Learning
Personalized & Actionable Professional Learning

66 APPENDIX

67 WORKS CITIED
INTRODUCTION
Deep understandings of mathematics and well-honed abilities in mathematical thinking are critically relevant for
today’s students. With careers in STEM increasing significantly over the past decade, it is increasingly important
to evaluate the relationship that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics have with each other,
especially in terms of math education. Now more than ever, the role of not only technology, but the equitable use
of technology, is critical to the success of students in the mathematics classroom and beyond. This level of equity
does not only refer to how accessible technology is, but also the premise that, “every student, not just those
labeled as honors students, should have the opportunity to engage with high cognitive-demand tasks that used
digital mathematical technology” (White, Fernandes, and Civil 2018).

For over a century, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has led effort to strengthen math
teaching and learning. Their Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. describes a vision of equitable
and successful school mathematics. It states that this ideal classroom has, “ambitious expectations for all, with
accommodation for those who need it. Knowledgeable teachers have adequate resources to support their work
are continually growing as professionals. The curriculum is mathematically rich, offering students opportunities to
learn important mathematical concepts and procedures with understanding. Technology is an essential
component of the environment” (NCTM 2000, pg. 3). This focus on equitability, resources, and technology in
curriculum is key in makings students are mathematicians in and outside of the classroom.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s Into MathTM © 2020 is an intentional, comprehensive, and inspiring mathematics
program for Grades K–8 that centers on student growth. Growth is maximized when instruction, assessment, and
professional learning are coordinated and tightly aligned. Into MathTM © 2020 is structured to support growth in
teaching and learning. The curriculum seeks to promote the following:

 Focused and Purposeful Content – Carefully crafted mathematical tasks, differentiated resources, and
clear instructional supports help teachers put every student front and center.
 Ongoing and Relevant Support – Embedded student supports, classroom videos, resources libraries,
and coaching provide learning opportunities for teachers.
 Integrated and Actionable Assessment, Data, and Reports – Auto-scored assignments and
assessments help educators make data-informed instructional decisions.

Built upon a foundation of mathematics education research and authored by leaders in the field of mathematics
education, Into MathTM © 2020 is proven to be effective in raising students’ achievement. This document
highlights the features of this cohesive, innovative program while explicitly demonstrating the research upon
which it is based.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 1

CURRICULUM DESIGN AND
STANDARDS
In the modern era, the United States has benefitted greatly from the economic, social, and health advances
made possible by a workforce with expertise in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)—and
both the importance and demand for jobs in STEM fields continues to increase (Langdon, McKittrick, Beede, Khan,
& Doms, 2011). Mathematical conceptual understanding, thinking, and reasoning along with the skills to engage in
procedural reliability, fluency, and automaticity are vital capacities for 21st century learners (Granovskiy,
2018). Research demonstrates that standards-based learning environments have a significant positive impact on
student achievement in mathematics and that high-performing schools have a clear, focused curriculum in which
instruction and assessment are closely aligned to standards (Peterson & Ackerman, 2015; Shannon & Bylsma,
2007; Tarr, Reys, Reys, Chavez, Shih, & Osterlind, 2008). Mathematics programs that effectively support the
development of essential 21st century skills are structured by coherent learning progressions that build
conceptual understandings as well as connections among areas of mathematical study and between
mathematics and the real world (NCTM, 2014).

Dr. Matthew Larson, Past President of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Senior Fellow at Math
Solutions, and Author of HMH Into Math urges in his post Mathematics Learning: A Journey Not a Sprint (NCTM,
2017) that, while standards initiatives and instructional goals aimed at boosting achievement remain crucial...:

We must emphasize to parents, teachers, counselors, administrators and students that the goals of
learning mathematics are multidimensional and balanced: students must develop a deep conceptual
understanding (why), coupled with procedural fluency (how), but in addition they also need the ability to
reason and apply mathematics (when), and all while developing a positive mathematics identity and
high sense of agency. All four goals are critical components of what it means to be mathematically
literate in the 21st century.

HMH Into Math is structured according to coherent learning progressions that utilize evidence-based pedagogy
and practices to teach essential mathematics knowledge and skills. Along each grade-level journey, the
program fosters within students agency and awareness of their own learning; deep thinking and reasoning
abilities; mathematical habits of mind; and language development.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 2

INTENTIONAL DESIGN
To succeed in mathematics, students need a clear,  Stage 1: clarifies goals, examines content
articulated path for learning. [M]athematics standards, and reviews curriculum expectations
instruction—like any good instruction—must be with the purpose of establishing priorities.
intentionally designed and carefully orchestrated in  Stage 2: examines the assessment evidence
the classroom, and should always focus on needed to document and validate that the
impacting student learning" (Hattie, Fisher, & Frey, targeted learning has been achieved—a process
2017, p. 3-4). A coherent math curriculum is that further serves to sharpen and focus teaching.
sequentially ordered to best reflect the hierarchical  Stage 3: requires teachers to consider the most
and logical structures of mathematics (Schmidt, appropriate and effective approaches to
Wang, & McKnight, 2005). “A robust curriculum is assessment-based instruction that yields
more than a collection of activities; instead, it is a understanding.
coherent sequencing of core mathematical ideas
that are well articulated across the grades” (NCTM, Identifying what students will learn is only one
2014, p.4). aspect of lesson design. It is critical that classroom
experiences also connect to what students need to
A clear, articulated path toward learning objectives know and makes learning purposeful. Intentional
begins with teachers knowing what each student design allows students to recognize, with clarity and
needs to learn each day—and exactly what success intentionality, what is expected of them, including
looks like for each student (Hattie et al., 2017). what they are learning and why they are learning it
Wiggins and McTighe (2005) describe effective (Kanold, 2018; NCTM, 2014; Wiliam, 2011).
instructional design in the classroom as centered on
guiding questions, such as: What should students Per Hattie and colleagues (2017), related to
know, understand, and be able to do? How will we intentional design in mathematics is the concept of
know if students have achieved the desired results? instructional rigor as viewed as an equally intensive
How will we support learners as they come to balance among conceptual understanding,
understand important ideas and processes? The procedural skills and fluency, and application.
authors propose three stages in their model for "[M]athematics teaching is most powerful when it
designing instruction: starts with appropriately challenging intentions and
success criteria" (p. 4).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 3

HOWHMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
Today’s standards require a focused, coherent, and HMH Into Math's intentional design forms a
rigorous curriculum to ensure students develop an coherent sequence called a Learning Arc that builds
in-depth understanding of mathematical concepts a foundation of conceptual understanding in
and language. Rigorous instruction must include a advance of teaching procedures. These
balanced approach, giving equal emphasis to progressions along Learning Arcs also permit
conceptual understanding, procedural skill and connections to students' background knowledge.
fluency, and application. HMH Into Math is a Opportunities for application are found throughout.
comprehensive mathematics learning system in An emphasis is placed on connections between
which all the resources have a clear and intentional concepts and skills. The Learning Arc also ensures
purpose that supports effective instruction. delivery of rigorous, relevant instruction.

Within individual lessons, HMH Into Math offers

consistent yet adaptable structures and routines
that put research-based best practices into action
and are augmented by a range of resources to
support each student's needs. This intentional
design yields dynamic, enriching learning
experiences and targeted instructional outcomes.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 4

FOCUSED, PRIORITIZED CONTENT
Reviews of math curricula suggest that a greater advanced topics and develop those in depth” (NRC,
focus on fewer core mathematical ideas at each 2001, p. 37).
grade yields a greater depth of understanding that
results in higher levels of content mastery (Cobb & Establishing clear priorities from among national,
Jackson, 2011). "The mathematics curriculum in state, or local content standards is an essential
Grades PreK–8 should be streamlined and should component of instructional planning that will
emphasize a well-defined set of the most critical ultimately achieve targeted goals. Standards
topics in the early grades" (National Mathematics typically call for more content than can be
Advisory Panel, 2008, p. xiii). reasonably, effectively addressed within available
time; therefore, teachers must make choices based
For the past several decades, the cornerstone of on the specific needs of their students (Senn,
education policy in the United States has centered Rutherford, & Marzano, 2014; Wiggins & Tighe,
around the implementation of rigorous standards, 2005). Additionally, the standards should “promote
aligned instruction, and accountability measures. rigor not simply by including advanced
While standards-based teaching with quality mathematical content, but by requiring a deep
materials is demonstrably effective and standards understanding of the content at each grade level,
provide a guide to what is critical to teach, and providing sufficient focus to make that
standards alone are insufficient in achieving broad possible” (Achieve, 2010, p. 1).
improvement to learning. Within standards-aligned
instruction, focus and coherence are essential NCTM (2014) also urges that curriculum design take
(Schmidt et al., 2005), particularly as they are into consideration the amount of new content to be
adapted based on individual students' progress introduced in a particular grade or course so that
and needs (Pak, Polikoff, Desimone, & Garcia, 2020). sufficient time will be available to teach concepts
Examinations of teaching in American mathematics and procedures using its recommended
classrooms concurrent with standards reform efforts Mathematics Teaching Practices (which are
have shown a lack of depth and rigor as well as identified later in this paper). For students to
diffuse coverage of content (National Research achieve understanding and acquire mathematics
Council, 2001). In international comparisons of math skills, identifying and clarifying what those students
and science performance, the countries at the top are expected to learn and understand in a
generally present students with fewer topics but at mathematics classroom is an essential component
greater depth and increased coherence (National to success (Wiliam, 2011). By addressing the goals
Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; Schmidt et al., within mathematics learning progressions, teachers
2005). “[S]uccessful countries tend to select a few have the opportunity to examine and monitor
critical topics for each grade and then devote student growth in order to adjust instructional
enough time to developing each topic for students priorities as necessary (Sarama, et al., 2004; Sztajn,
to master it. Rather than returning to the same Confrey, Wilson, & Edgington, 2012).
topics the following year, they select new, more

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 5

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
Mathematics learning and language objectives can objectives. Providing a more thorough description of
be challenging to identify and implement. The HMH what is expected and targeted in each lesson
Into Math solution commits to a concise, logical allows teachers and students to have a shared
curriculum, tightly focused on building deep understanding of learning.
conceptual understanding connected to procedural
fluency and thorough application. The solution’s
Learning Arc supports students in making
connections and bridging the conceptual to the
procedural, providing them with better access to
the concrete models associated with the
procedures when they need those procedures to
complete more complex tasks.

HMH Into Math offers an articulated curriculum with The Teacher’s Editions also include Language
a clear sequence of content organized by Objectives. These objectives support students as
progressions and connected to standards within they learn mathematical concepts and language
and across grade levels. The program also outlines and practice communicating mathematically.
essential content and skills and provides teachers
with coherent objectives for each lesson of each To further aid the prioritization of content and
module. goals, available to teachers on Ed, HMH's online
learning platform is a Teaching with Priority
Standards resource with guidance for educators on
a variety of issues and considerations related to this
critical process across content areas and specific to
math.

Teacher's Editions include an Unpacking the

Standards component with interpretative
information about standards as well as guidance
connecting the standard to other content and

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 6

COHERENT LEARNING PROGRESSIONS
Effective mathematics programs feature curricula Beginning in elementary school and continuing
that develop important mathematical concepts throughout their mathematics education, students
along coherent, meaningful learning progressions must develop understanding and use of the "big
and develop connections among areas of ideas" that represent overarching concepts as well
mathematical study and between mathematics as specific mathematical reasoning processes
and the real world. In its expansive research in essential across domains (Cross et al., 2009, p. 44).
mathematics teaching and learning, NCTM The most effective instructional programs will build
promotes that the idea that “[m]athematics on children’s intuitive mathematical thinking and
teachers need to have a clear understanding of the use that initial understanding to help children learn
curriculum within and across grade levels—in other to solve problems, employ strategies, and engage
words, student learning progressions—to effectively in mathematical thinking (Carpenter, Fennema,
teach a particular grade level or course in the Franke, Levi, & Empson, 2015). In terms of content,
sequence” (NCTM, 2014, p.72). research suggests that for the youngest children,
developing a thorough understanding of number
Learning progressions are a “carefully sequenced and of geometry and spatial measurement are
set of building blocks that students must master en developmentally appropriate and especially crucial
route to a more distant curricular aim. The building to supporting later study (Cross et al., 2009).
blocks consist of sub skills and bodies of enabling
knowledge” (Popham, 2008, p. 83). Because math Worth noting, however, is that not everything
learning occurs sequentially, building on previous taught in mathematics fits neatly into a conceptual
learning and developing in sophistication, part of a progression. While there is a temptation “to want to
discussion of content in mathematics must address discover universal progressions in learning that are
the idea of sequence or progressions that promote driven by deep changes in conceptual structure . . .
for students a view of the curriculum as a broader there are parts of mathematics learning that,
learning process with defined goals for learning. although important and complex, are driven by
Teachers should support learners as they build on more incremental mechanisms." This does not
what they know, develop more complex suggest, however, that isolated instruction and
understandings, and realize that mathematics is not practice is effective, but rather than there are some
a set of discrete parts—it is coherent and mathematical skills which may be best developed
connected (Fosnot & Jacob, 2010; Ma, 2010). with practice in the context of a “meaningful
"[L]earning progressions can be leveraged in examination of patterns and strategies” (Sherin &
mathematics education as a form of curriculum Fuson, 2005, p. 385-386).
research that advances a linked understanding of
students learning over time through careful An essential element in a focused, coherent
articulation of a curricular framework and progression of mathematics learning is an emphasis
progression, instructional sequence, assessments, on proficiency with key topics (National
and levels of sophistication in student learning" Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008). To help
(Fonger, Stephens, Blanton, Isler, Knuth & Gardiner, students build proficiencies, "[d]epending on the
2018, abstract). learning goals, and where students are in their
learning progression, there is a balance of methods
A coherent math curriculum is sequenced within and that makes for high impact and effective learning"
across grade levels in a way that best reflects the (Hattie et al., 2017, p. 3).
hierarchical and logical structures of mathematics
(Schmidt, et al., 2005).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 7

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math offers an articulated curriculum with The content architecture is focused, purposeful,
a clear sequence of content organized by and coherent. Each lesson clearly outlines the
progressions and connected to standards within standards and practices, objectives, and learning
and across grade levels. These progressions reflect progressions.
the hierarchical and logical structures of
mathematics instruction for deep understanding.
The program also outlines essential content and
skills and provides teachers with coherent
objectives for each lesson of each module.
Pathways to success are visible to both teachers
and students at every step of the way.

HMH Into Math is rigorous, focused, and cohesive,

which is necessary for effective mathematics
teaching and learning. Throughout the solution,
students build their conceptual understandings,
improve their procedural fluency, and apply their
knowledge in meaningful contexts and real-world
applications.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 8

ROUTINES FOR REASONING
Mathematical proficiency requires deep learning. struggle" (Berry, 2018, online). Additionally, effective
Deep learning requires deep thinking. Deep thinking routines include "low floor/high ceiling" learning
requires carefully structured, interactive instructional tasks, which begin at a level of difficulty that all
activities that feature predictable and repeatable students can access and attempt and then build in
routines that allow students to focus on and complexity so that ultimately all students are
engage with tasks, content, problems, and each challenged to their individual limits (Sircar & Titus,
other (Lampert, 2015). Research has found that 2015).
certain instructional routines, many well established
and commonly practiced, support the development Lampert (2015) recommends that instructional
of mathematical proficiencies, including conceptual activities regularly include the following elements as
understanding, strategic competence, adaptive part of a predictable routine: providing individual
reasoning, productive disposition, and procedural think time for students; having students explain their
fluency (Berry, 2018). “Like [classroom] management thinking to one another; having students share their
routines, these ‘mathematical thinking routines’ also thinking publicly by representing it for the class; and
have a predictable set of actions that students connecting student reasoning to core
learn and then practice repeatedly until they are mathematical thought. "Repeatedly using practices
second nature” (Kelemanik, Lucenta, & Creighton, that support these kinds of activities turns
2016, p.18). important elements of academic engagement into
habits. Through repetition, both teacher and
Well-designed routines for reasoning provide students acquire new intellectual and social skills
essential opportunities for students to articulate and dispositions. More importantly, perhaps, both
complex mathematical situations that allow teacher and students acquire new ways of thinking
students to revise and refine both their ideas and about what it means to teach and learn, and what
their verbal and written output (Zwiers, 2014). "If the they are able to accomplish" (p. 17).
goal in mathematics teaching and learning is to
support student success with mathematical Lucenta and Kelemanik (2020) further propose an
proficiency, then we must be explicit about using approach to routines for reasoning that centers
instructional routines that focus on student around mathematical modeling and includes
engagement in activities that support reasoning collaborative work through a process of making
and sensemaking, communication with and about sense, analyzing the situation, interpreting a model,
mathematical ideas, making meaningful analyzing and adapting the model, and reflecting
connections, building procedural fluency from on thinking.
conceptual understanding, and productive

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 9

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
Every lesson of the HMH Into Math solution Differentiation Options: According to student
represents an intentional design anchored by understanding, groups are formed to ensure growth
routines that are consistent yet adaptable to for each and every student by providing resources
effectively and reliably support students and based on individual needs. Teachers can then
teachers. decide how to best support students with
differentiated resources such as independent
Lessons within each module follow the sequence practice, Math Centers, or connecting to the
profiled in the Intentional Design section above. Teacher Tabletop Flipchart mini-lesson and
Concepts are introduced and students engage in additional small-group activities.
productive perseverance to explore the concepts.
The teacher then assesses student understanding Wrap-Up: Here is the opportunity for additional
and guides differentiated activities to further practice, reteaching, or intervention. Teachers
develop the concepts for some students and to gauge student depth of understanding with exit
clarify for others. At lesson's close, students further tickets and suggested wrap-up ideas.
practice the concepts and procedures, preparing
for the next lesson. While HMH Into Math lessons Homework or Practice: Each lesson includes
are organized according to these three stages, they homework/practice opportunities for students to
refine teaching and learning to accommodate practice the concepts just introduced.
specific needs as they arise and as assessment
deems. Specific components of the routine Mathematical language routines are also provided
accomplish the following aims: throughout HMH Into Math. These language
routines serve to amplify, assess, and develop
Spark Your Learning: Teachers work on-level with students' language skills and usage through
students to gauge their readiness and to inspire ongoing, predictable, flexible opportunities for
and guide productive perseverance. In Apply and students at all language proficiency levels to listen,
Practice lessons, Spark Your Learning is replaced speak, and write about mathematical situations.
with Step It Out to help students begin to build The HMH Into Math mathematical language
fluency, learn to choose from multiple available routines feature is profiled in the Embedded
strategies, and rely on the conceptual Language Development and Support section that
understanding developed previously to solve follows.
rigorous tasks. These tasks also provide accessible
low floor/high ceiling mathematics instruction to Every HMH Into Math lesson provides ample
meet individual students at their optimal learning opportunities for teachers to engage students and
level. check students’ understanding as it develops. Every
lesson allows for students to practice what they are
Learn Together: Whole-group learning is facilitated learning, refine their problem-solving skills, and
in these Build Understanding and Step It Out tasks. showcase their growing positive mathematical
Build Understanding tasks provide an opportunity to mindset and skill set. The solution is intentionally
help students understand lesson concepts. Step It designed to reflect the realities of actual
Out tasks promote procedural understanding. classrooms and support individual student needs—
while achieving the rigorous, standards- and
Check Understanding: After the learning tasks, research-based goals for learning.
these five- to ten-minute checkpoints provide a
snapshot of what students know.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 10

MATHEMATICAL HABITS OF MIND
"The ability to solve new and unforeseen problems mathematical habits of mind is essential to
requires mastery not just of the results of mathematical proficiency, critical thought, college
mathematical thinking (the familiar facts and and career readiness, access to future
procedures) but of the ways that mathematically opportunities, and productive participation in
proficient individuals do that thinking. This is society (Goldenberg et al., 2015). “If we really want
especially true as our economy increasingly to empower our students for life after school, we
depends on fields that require mathematics. need to prepare them to be able to use,
Mathematical proficiency depends also on other understand, control, modify, and make decisions
mental habits that dispose one to characterize about a class of technology that does not yet exist.
problems (and solutions) in precise ways, to That means we have to help them develop
subdivide and explore problems by posing new and genuinely mathematical ways of thinking” (Cross,
related problems, and to 'play' (either concretely or Woods, & Schweingruber, 2009, p. 21).
with thought experiments) to gain experience and
insights from which some regularity or structure Mathematical habits of mind develop as a by-
might be derived" (Goldenberg, Mark, Kang, Fries, product of teaching mathematics through problem
Carter & Cordner, 2015, p. 1-2). solving, in a process that entails modeling and
reflection so that habits are internalized (Kaplinsky,
Researchers have advocated for using 2018 & 2019; Levasseur & Cuoco, 2009). Effectively
mathematical habits of mind as a framework for problematizing mathematics has students think for
approaching math instruction for several decades themselves and explain their thinking while also
but the idea is timeless: mathematics has always supported by their teacher, classmates, and math
been about more than its products—facts, methods, program; to struggle productively; and ultimately to
formulas, etc.—as successful study within the field apply their gained knowledge and strategies to
draws on cognitive practices such as strategies and new and more complex problems they encounter in
behavioral dispositions such as perseverance to the future (Hiebert, Carpenter, Fennema, Fuson,
solve complex problems (Cuoco, Goldenberg, & Human, Murray, Olivier, & Wearne, 1996). Ultimately,
Mark, 1996; Goldenberg et al., 2015). In their seminal problem solving in the mathematics classroom
work, Cuoco and colleagues (1996) proposed that encourages students to see that their actions can
“more important than specific mathematical results lead to intellectual growth, and this “focus on the
are the habits of mind used by the people who potential of students to develop their intellectual
create those results . . . this includes learning to capacity provides a host of motivational benefits”
recognize when problems or statements that (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007, p. 260).
purport to be mathematical are, in truth, still quite
ill-posed or fuzzy; becoming comfortable with and To cultivate mathematical habits of mind, teachers
skilled at bringing mathematical meaning to also must create a classroom culture that
problems and statements through definition, demonstrates how challenge is a natural part of the
systematization, abstraction, or logical connection learning process (Star, 2015) and allows students to
making; and seeking and developing new ways of see the benefits of perseverance (Hiebert & Grouws,
describing situations” (p. 376). 2007). Educators and students both must also
adopt growth mindsets and positive views on
Mathematical habits of mind reflect how productive challenge. These attitudinal states yield
mathematicians think about situations in numerous desired affective outcomes and boost
automated, internalized ways that allow them to academic achievement (Dweck, 2006, 2008 & 2015;
persist through complex problems. Developing Hiebert & Grouws, 2007; NCTM, 2014).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 11

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
Throughout the program, HMH Into Math cultivates The program also develops students' productive
students' mathematical habits of mind. It does so perseverance with the aid of strategies from
via a multipronged approach that emphasizes Mindset Works.
problem solving in real world applications, making
the math learning relevant within and beyond the
classroom. HMH Into Math also fosters productive
perseverance, helping students to persist through
process and see the process itself as essential and
enjoyable. The program also helps students see
themselves as capable problem solvers and math HMH Into Math further fosters mathematical habits
learners through such features as the I Can of mind by extending the learning journey. As part of
statements that introduce problem solving tasks. differentiation tools, the program provides a Ready
for More small group option that allows students to
expand their knowledge and additionally explore
topics and their real-world implications, impact.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 12

EMBEDDED LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND SUPPORT
multilingual students, to regularly communicate
Multilingual learners are the fastest growing student verbally and in writing about their mathematical
population in the United States, representing about ideas, and in doing so that "they not only reflect on
4.5 million or nearly 10% of overall enrollment in and clarify those ideas but also begin to become a
public schools during the 2013-14 academic year community of learners” (Bray, Dixon, & Martinez,
(Grapin, 2019; National Center for Education 2006, p. 138). Also, when introducing academic
Statistics, 2016). The description "multilingual words to English language learners’ expressive
learner" applies to all students who regularly vocabularies, students respond best to classrooms
interact with languages other than English, including that offer predictable routines and frequent,
but not limited to those commonly referred to as comfortable opportunities to express what they
English language learners (ELs). "Multilingual learners have learned (Feldman & Kinsella, 2008).
come from a wide range of cultural, linguistic, Connecting math and language through productive
educational, and socioeconomic backgrounds and struggle is also important for ELs (Asturias Méndez,
have many physical, social, emotional, experiential, 2015).
and/or cognitive differences. All bring assets,
potential, and resources to schools that educators
must leverage to increase equity in standards- Zwiers, Dieckmann, Rutherford-Quach, Daro, Skarin,
based systems. Increasing avenues of access, Weiss, and Malamut (2017) developed a framework
agency, and equity for all multilingual learners— for promoting language and content development
including newcomers, students with interrupted in tandem within mathematics instruction. The
formal schooling (SIFE), long-term English learners framework is based on four design principles to
(L-TELs), students with disabilities, and gifted and guide curriculum planning and teaching practices:
talented English learners—requires educators to be 1. Support sense-making: Scaffold tasks and amplify
knowledgeable, skillful, imaginative, and language so students can make their own meaning
compassionate" (WIDA, 2020, p. 18). 2. Optimize output: Strengthen the opportunities
and supports for helping students to describe
In a 2020 practice brief based on current research clearly their mathematical thinking to others, orally,
findings, U.S. Department of Education's Office of visually, and in writing.
English Language Acquisition identifies five key 3. Cultivate conversation: Strengthen the
practices for educators teaching English learners: opportunities and supports for constructive
1. Embrace asset beliefs that position and support mathematical conversations (pairs, groups, and
ELs as full participants in mathematical learning. whole class).
2. Engage ELs in meaningful interactions and 4. Maximize linguistic and cognitive meta-
discourse with others. awareness: Strengthen the ”meta-” connections
3. Provide support for ELs to engage in and distinctions between mathematical ideas,
mathematical practices. reasoning, and language.
4. Sustain an explicit focus on language as it is used
in math. Additionally, Zwiers and colleagues' framework
5. Design mathematical learning experiences that recommends eight research-based mathematical
engage ELs in rich communications integrating language routines (MLRs) with structured but flexible
oral and written language. formats that emphasize meaningful and purposeful
English and domain-specific language use:
"Students who are not fluent in English can learn the  MLR1: Stronger and Clearer Each Time: to provide
language of mathematics at grade level or beyond a structured and interactive opportunity for
at the same time that they are learning English students to revise and refine both their ideas and
when appropriate instructional strategies are their verbal and written output.
used...Effective mathematics instruction leverages  MLR2: Collect and Display: to capture students’
students’ culture, conditions, and language to oral words and phrases into a stable, collective
support and enhance mathematics learning (NCTM, reference containing illustrations connected to
2014, p. 63)" mathematical concepts and terms.
 MLR3: Critique, Correct, and Clarify: to give
While many perceive that math is easier for ELs to students a piece of mathematical writing that is
learn because it involves numbers, mathematics not their own to analyze, reflect on, and develop.
actually presents specific language challenges to  MLR4: Information Gap: to create a need for
this student population (Janzen, 2008). It is students to communicate in math.
important for all students, but particularly

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 13

 MLR5: Co-Craft Questions and Problems: to allow equip students with tools used to negotiate
students to get inside a context before feeling meaning.
pressure to produce answers, to create space for  MLR7: Compare and Connect: to foster students’
students to produce the language of meta-awareness as they identify, compare, and
mathematical questions themselves, and to contrast different mathematical approaches,
provide opportunities for students to analyze how representations, concepts, examples, and
different mathematical forms can represent language.
different situations.  MLR8: Discussion Supports: to support rich and
 MLR6: Three Reads: to ensure that students know inclusive discussions about mathematical ideas,
what they are being asked to do, create representations, contexts, and strategies.
opportunities for students to reflect on the ways
mathematical questions are presented, and

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 14

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
A driving mission within HMH Into Math is to present  Compare and Connect – Students listen to a
all students, including and especially English partner's solution strategy and then identify,
learners, with frequent opportunities to speak, write, compare, and contrast this strategy application,
read, and listen in the mathematics classroom to in a process that boosts metacognitive
boost the development of their language skills, both awareness (MP.6).
specific to the domain and generally. The program  Collect and Display – Students capture oral
provides explicit, deliberate, evidence-based, and words and phrases learned and build a collective
WIDA-aligned support within a mathematics reference containing illustrations connected to
context, utilizing strategies to produce growth for mathematical concepts and terms within each
students within each level of language proficiency. module (MP.6).
 Critique, Correct, and Clarify – Students correct
HMH Into Math uses current research to challenge work that is not their own with a flawed
traditional language development practices in the explanation, argument, or solution method and
classroom and highlight the importance of share with a partner to reflect and then refine the
intentional materials, design, and professional sample work (MP.3).
learning. HMH Into Math was designed with four  Teacher Tabletop Flipcharts contain leveled
guiding principles to support mathematical scaffolding and support for English Learners.
language use and development. The four design These tools ensure teachers maintain the rigor
principles, infused within Mathematics Language and cognitive complexity level required for
Routines, are based on the work of Zwiers and mathematical reasoning while supporting ELs.
colleagues (2017) cited above and they serve as the
foundation for the language development practices HMH Into Math allows the acquisition of academic
in HMH Into Math: vocabulary to emerge after the students explore a
concept and develop understanding. Rather than
front-loading new vocabulary, it is highlighted after
the concept is taught, connecting students’
understanding of the concept to the explicit
vocabulary term. With this unique approach, English
learners simultaneously boost their disciplinary and
English language abilities.

HMH Into Math Readers allow teachers to

integrate literature into their math instruction. An
assortment of titles is provided for each grade-
level. HMH Into Math Readers help students build
mental models for abstract concepts and
strengthen students’ reasoning and conceptual
HMH Into Math's Routines for Language understanding. They also enhance academic
Development help teachers promote the design vocabulary and bring engaging mathematical
principles routines that are structured, but content to life. Into Math Readers are available in
adaptable, in a format for amplifying, assessing, print and online. A copy of each grade-level title is
and developing students' language skills and provided in the program's differentiated resources
usage. These Routines provide opportunities for kit. Digital e-books with audio support are included
students to listen, speak, and write about within HMH's Ed platform. Spanish versions of the
mathematical situations with practices that are Readers are available as well.
appropriate and effective for all language
proficiency levels. Routines include these features:
 Three Reads –To ensure understanding of Linguistic Notes are provided in the HMH Into Math
mathematical questions, students read a Teacher’s Edition to support teachers with cues for
problem three times with a specific focus each what to listen for, tips to prevent language
time addressing Mathematical Practice 1 (MP.1). misunderstanding, and repeated opportunities to
 Stronger and Clearer Each Time – Students use elicit students' their mathematical thinking. The
structure to write their reasoning behind a notes help teachers with ideas in how to best
problem, share and explain their reasoning, listen support English learners in the classroom and
to and respond to feedback, and then write improve language development alongside
again to refine their reasoning (MP.6). mathematical content.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 15

MATHEMATICAL
KNOWLEDGE AND
TEACHING
"An excellent mathematics program requires effective teaching that engages students in meaningful learning
through individual and collaborative experiences that promote their ability to make sense of mathematical ideas
and reason mathematically" (NCTM, 2014, p. 7). Effective teaching and its development of students'
mathematical knowledge are the driving forces behind powerful mathematics instruction and deep
understanding. Research continually demonstrates that mathematics learning should be focused on engaging
students in instructional tasks and interactive practices that promote reasoning, problem solving, and discourse—
all with the aim of fostering understanding of mathematical concepts and procedures (NCTM, 2009 & 2014;
National Research Council 2012).

HMH Into Math empowers teachers by providing them with the tools, resources, and professional learning they
need to improve outcomes and create an engaging classroom culture. HMH Into Math aligns with the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NTCM)'s (in Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All, 2014)
framework of eight essential, research-based, high-leverage practices for teaching and learning that promote
deep understanding of mathematics, as described in the section that follows.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 16

CLEAR GOALS TO FOCUS LEARNING
Research demonstrates that clarity between carefully sequenced sets of sub-skills and bodies of
teachers and students regarding intentions for what enabling knowledge that students must master to
is to be learned, why it is to be learned, and criteria reach more distant curricular goals (Popham, 2007).
for what constitutes success is one of the most
effective teaching practices for yielding targeted By looking at the goals within mathematics learning
outcomes (Almarode & Vandas, 2018; Hattie, 2009; progressions, teachers have the opportunity to
Leahy, Lyon, Thompson, & Wiliam, 2005). examine and monitor student progress and needs in
“Formulating clear, explicit learning goals sets the order to adjust instruction as necessary (Charles,
stage for everything else” (Hiebert, Morris, Berk & 2005; Sarama, DiBiase, Clements, & Spitler, 2004;
Jansen, 2007, p. 57). Setting specific goals and Sztajn, Confrey, Wilson, & Edgington, 2012).
expectations that articulate a clear path for Teachers can support learners as they build on
behavior and desired performance serve for what they know, develop more complex
students as motivation for learning and a sense of understandings, and realize that mathematics is not
greater agency (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; a set of discrete parts; rather, it is coherent and
Marzano, 2010). Additionally, promoting self- connected (Fosnot & Jacob, 2010; Ma, 2010). For
determination is an important component in students to achieve understanding and acquire
classroom instruction aimed at helping all students mathematics skills, identifying and clarifying what
attain post-academic success and quality of life, students are expected to learn and understand in a
and particularly for students with special needs, mathematics classroom is an essential component
helping students develop skills associated with self- to success (Wiliam, 2011)—and a failure to provide
determination—e.g., planning, self-management, clear expectations results in low levels of
self-awareness, problem-solving, and goal- achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998a).
setting—is critical in preparation for experiences
within and beyond school (Raley, Schogren, & Work by Haystead & Marzano (2009) and Hattie
McDonald, 2018). (2009) shows that students in classrooms where
learning goals are clearly articulated perform at
"Effective teaching of mathematics establishes higher levels than students who are unaware of the
clear goals for the mathematics that students are expectations. While it is important for learning goals
learning, situates goals within learning progressions, to be clear, it is equally important that students are
and uses the goals to guide instructional decisions" the ones doing the “sense-making” (Dixon, 2018).
(NCTM, 2014, p. 3). Pointing out that, historically, Indeed, establishing clarity for learning aims is
“piecemeal efforts aimed at narrow learning goals ideally an authentically co-creative process
have failed to improve U.S. students’ learning” (p. between teachers and students (Almarode &
12), NCTM calls for mathematics teaching that Vandas, 2018). When expectations are discussed
develops understanding through coherent curricula with their teachers, students are able to find value
that sequence core mathematical ideas into in their work and understand the greater purpose of
learning progressions. “[A] well-articulated what they are learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998a;
curriculum gives teachers guidance regarding Marzano, 2010).
important ideas or major themes, which receive
special attention at different points in time,” as, Additionally, establishing goals allows students to
specifically, “…it must be coherent, focused on focus on set expectations and become more aware
important mathematics, and well-articulated of their own thinking and learning (Clarke, Timperley,
across the grades” (NCTM, 2014, p. 14). A coherent & Hattie, 2004). Curriculum designed and
math curriculum is sequentially ordered to best developed for 21st-century learning makes learning
reflect the hierarchical and logical structures of goals transparent to students; continuously
mathematics (Schmidt, Wang, & McKnight, 2005). monitors, provides feedback, and responds to
Because math learning occurs sequentially, builds students’ learning progress toward goals; and
on previous learning, and develops in sophistication, engages students in self- and peer assessment in
mathematics education must address the idea of achieving goals (Committee on Defining Deeper
progressions that helps students see a curriculum as Learning and 21st Century Skills, 2012).
a broader learning process with defined goals for
learning (Marzano, 2009). Learning progressions are

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 17

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
Within HMH Into Math, the what, how, and why associated Expectations around assessment activities are also clarified
with learning tasks is transparent and relevant to students. for students.
Expectations are applied and reinforced throughout lessons,
including in discourse with peers through Turn and Talk.

The I Can feature in the HMH Into Math Student Edition at

each grade identifies specific expectations for learning as
well as reinforces a sense of competence and capability.
<<asset from Into Mat Gr4 SE p11>>

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 18

REASONING AND PROBLEM SOLVING
“[S]olving a problem means finding a way out of a (Miri, David, & Uri, 2007; NCTM, 2014; Stein & Lane,
difficulty, a way around an obstacle, attaining an 1996). In constructing mathematical tasks, it is
aim which is not immediately attainable” (Polya, further recommended that teachers “problematize
1965, p. ix). Problem-solving is an engrained and with the goal of understanding the situations and
essential process within human experience. In the developing solution methods that make sense”
discipline of mathematics specifically, activities (Hiebert et al., 1996, p. 19).
such as formulating problems and assessing the
reasonableness of various approaches to their Students learn best when what they learn is
solutions is central to the development of skills and relevant and meaningful. Connecting problem
knowledge (Santos-Trigo, 2020). Engaging solving tasks to real world contexts and
students in problem-solving tasks allows them to applications improves perceptions of the content
actively construct mathematical understandings as interesting and beneficial, thereby increasing
and more deeply and with greater meaning than motivation to learn (Czerniak, Weber, Sandmann, &
when teachers present information to students Ahem, 1999). “When instruction is anchored in the
and have them carry out procedural exercises context of each learner’s world, students are more
(Masingila, Olanoff, & Kimani, 2018). "Even the likely to take ownership for . . . their own learning”
clearest teacher explanations leave many students (McREL, 2010, p. 7). Students at all levels need to
with incomplete understanding and shaky connect the mathematics they are learning to the
confidence. Ideas that are forged by hard thought world around them (Alberti, 2013) and teaching with
and tested in discourse with other students and contextual problems can be effective for
teachers are much more likely to last and be useful" developing “children’s mathematical modeling of
(Marcus & Fey, 2003, p. 61). the real world” (Fosnot & Dolk, 2010, p. 24).

To cultivate critical thinking capacities and develop Making connections between new information and
mathematical concepts, students need regular students’ existing knowledge— knowledge of other
opportunities to be challenged by problem solving content areas and of the real world—has proved to
tasks with multiple paths to the solution (Kaplinsky, be more effective than learning facts in isolation
2019). High-quality, research-based instructional (Beane, 1997; Bransford et al., 1999; Caine & Caine,
math programs build on students’ intuitive 1991; Kovalik & Olsen, 1994). Further, connecting
mathematical thinking and unique background mathematics to science, social studies, and
knowledge; incorporate rich and rigorous problem- business topics can increase students’
solving tasks that engage interest; require that understanding of and ability with mathematics
students employ strategic thinking and (Russo, Hecht, Burghardt, & Saxman, 2011). In their
mathematical habits of mind—all with the larger aim study of mathematics learning in early childhood,
of developing, over time, students' conceptual Cross, Woods, and Schweingruber (2009)
understanding and procedural fluency (Carpenter, concluded that to effectively foster students’
Fennema, et al., 2015; David & Greene, 2007; Hiebert conceptual understanding, teachers must include
et al., 1996; NCTM, 2014). "Effective teaching of four key elements or opportunities within their
mathematics engages students in solving and teaching and learning activities: analyzing and
discussing tasks that promote mathematical reasoning; creating; integrating; and making real-
reasoning and problem solving and allow multiple world connection. “Our findings suggest that if
entry points and varied solution strategies" (NCTM, teachers purposefully and persistently practice
2014, p. 17). higher order thinking strategies for example dealing
in class with real-world problems, encouraging
Task selection is a critical aspect of supporting open-ended class discussions, and fostering
elementary students' reasoning and understanding inquiry-oriented experiments, there is a good
in mathematics—and among the key features of chance for a consequent development of critical
effective instructional tasks are that they be thinking capabilities” (Miri, David, & Uri, 2007, p. 353).
challenging and connective and as well as open to
multiple representations and multiple strategies for Having students engage in problem solving before
solutions (Childs & Glenn-White, 2018; Francisco & direct instruction and learn from their failed problem
Maher, 2005; Maher, 2002; Mueller, Yankelewitz, & solving attempts has been linked to significantly
Maher, 2014). Tasks that consistently encourage greater conceptual understanding as well as
high-level student thinking and reasoning (versus transfer of knowledge to novel problems (Kapur,
those that are routinely procedural) yield the 2014). Mueller and colleagues (2014) studied specific
greatest learning; and tasks of higher cognitive teacher actions that encouraged students to take
demand are necessary when promoting reasoning responsibility for their mathematical problem solving
and problem solving in the mathematics classroom and assume roles that might otherwise be expected

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 19

as the teacher’s responsibility, such as determining In the elementary grades, students must develop
if solutions to a problem are correct, evaluating the understanding and make use of the big ideas in
reasonableness of arguments, and posing mathematics and problem-solving tasks in ways
questions. "Rather than correcting students’ errors, that also contribute to understanding of those big
the teachers charged the students with considering ideas. Mathematics learning requires students to
the reasonableness of solutions. Students were not use specific mathematical reasoning processes,
praised for correct solutions; rather, all solutions also known as ‘big ideas,’ across domains. These
were considered and students were afforded the big ideas constitute overarching concepts that
opportunity to defend and/or modify their connect multiple concepts, procedures, or problems
arguments. A result was that the learners were within or across domains or topics. They also serve
comfortable judging their own solutions and those as an important aspect of the process of forming
of their peers, and learned that they could connections and acquiring background knowledge
determine the validity of a mathematical argument" that can be applied to expand later understanding
(p. 16-17). (Cross et al., 2009).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 20

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
Building reasoning and strategic problem-solving Teachers help students understand why the
skills and providing ongoing opportunities for procedures are efficient and how they can be
application are central aims of HMH Into Math. The applied to solve similar problem types.
program builds understanding along progressions
and big ideas that are clearly identified and To help teachers embrace best practices and
carefully sequenced. become comfortable facilitating Spark Your
Learning tasks, editable Spark PowerPoint files are
included the Resources on Ed. Teachers can use
these classroom presentations to propel
conversation forward, get students unstuck, and
show student work samples with correct
representations and answers.

HMH Into Math embeds learning within students' To succeed in mathematics, students need a clear,
background knowledge as well as within STEM articulated path for learning. [m]athematics
connections and real-world contexts. instruction—like any good instruction—must be
intentionally designed and carefully orchestrated in
Learning Tasks within each lesson include the the classroom, and should always focus on
following stages in the process of developing impacting student learning" (hattie, fisher, & frey,
students' reasoning and problem solving 2017, p. 3-4). A coherent math curriculum is
proficiency: sequentially ordered to best reflect the hierarchical
 Spark Your Learning tasks promote and logical structures of mathematics (schmidt,
conceptual understanding. During these low wang, & mcknight, 2005). “a robust curriculum is
floor/high ceiling tasks, students select more than a collection of activities; instead, it is a
manipulatives or representations that serve as coherent sequencing of core mathematical ideas
their entry point. Teachers provide just-in-time that are well articulated across the grades” (nctm,
support, helping students engage in meaningful 2014, p.4).
discourse and learn to persevere. Teachers
then lead the class to conceptual In the program's Critique, Correct, and Clarify
understanding by selecting students to share feature, students correct work that is not their own
their solutions and discuss their mathematical with a flawed explanation, argument, or solution
reasoning. method and share with a partner to reflect thane
refine the sample work.
 Build Understanding tasks are learning
opportunities designed to help students
understand lesson concepts. Teachers take a
more active role, guiding discussion during
whole-class instruction.

 Step It Out tasks build upon students’

conceptual understanding to promote
procedural understanding and fluency.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 21

MATHEMATICAL MODELS AND
REPRESENTATIONS
Because mathematics entails the use of signs such can show what students know, help students
as symbols and diagrams to represent abstract explain what they know, and be the foundation for
notions and study spatial aspects, as well as making connections and achieving a deeper
because the nature of the subject is often invisible understanding of mathematics. Math drawings or
and intangible, visualizations are integral to learning other visual renderings are tools for modeling,
and teaching mathematics (Presmeg, 2020; Bobis & sense-making, reasoning, explaining, structuring,
Way, 2018; Stylianou, 2011). Additionally, and generalizing. Mathematical representation is
mathematics as a tool for understanding present commonly thought to be a product—a picture or set
and future real-world problems has led to modeling of symbols students makes to demonstrate
becoming an important part of preparing students understanding; however, representation in math
for advanced study and careers (Abassian, Safi, learning is also a critical process. Students'
Bush, & Bostic, 2020). A wide body of research diagrams and symbolism evolve dynamically over
dating back decades supports the use of physical the course of problem solving and aid thinking and
and imagistic models, manipulatives, and other the construction of understanding in highly personal
such representations in the mathematics classroom; ways (Stylianou, 2011). When students sketch or
such representations help make abstract concepts organize their mathematical thinking, they are able
more concrete as well as aid in the internalization of to explore their understanding of concepts,
procedures for problem solving, increased procedures, and processes—and communicate
creativity, greater metacognition, and students’ mathematically (Arcavi, 2003; Stylianou & Silver,
more active participation in their own learning—all 2004). Having students then participate in
of which contribute key elements for impactful discussions about their representations allows for
mathematical exploration (Carbonneau, Marley, & meaningful learning (Fuson & Murata, 2007).
Selig, 2013; Cross et al., 2009; NCTM, 2000 & 2014;
NRC, 2001). The positive effects of manipulative use There are some mathematical skills which may be
in math instruction extend to digital tools as well as best developed with practice in the context of a
physical objects (Bouck & Park, 2018). “For students meaningful examination of patterns and strategies
to understand such mathematical formalisms, we (Fuson, 2009). A significant research base (see, for
must help them connect these formalisms with other example, Baroody, 2006; Fuson, Kalchman, &
forms of knowledge, including everyday experience, Bransford, 2005; Fuson & Murata, 2007; Russell,
concrete examples, and visual representations. 2000) suggests that to develop students’ fluency in
Such connections form a conceptual framework procedures, teachers should support students in
that holds mathematical knowledge together and looking for patterns and allow students to flexibly
facilitates its retrieval and application” (Donovan & choose among solution methods. "Research
Bransford, 2005, P. 364). indicates that discovering patterns or relations
facilitates mastery with fluency....Focusing on
NCTM (2000) recommends that K-12 instructional structure, rather than memorizing individual facts by
programs enable all students to create and use rote, makes the learning, retention, and transfer for
representations to organize, record, and any large body of factual knowledge more likely"
communicate mathematical ideas; select, apply, (Baroody, Bajwa, & Eiland, 2009, p. 70).
and translate among mathematical representations
to solve problems; and use representations to Using visual representations has shown to improve
model and interpret physical, social, and student performance in general mathematics,
mathematical phenomena. “Representations should prealgebra, word problems, and operations
be treated as essential elements in supporting (Gersten, Beckmann, Clarke, Foegen, Marsh, Star, &
students’ understanding of mathematical concepts Witzel, 2009). Mathematical representations enable
and relationships; in communicating mathematical teachers to explain and learners to understand
approaches, arguments, and understandings to situations quantitatively or geometrically as they
one’s self and to others; in recognizing connections “help to portray, clarify, or extend a mathematical
among related mathematical concepts; and in idea by focusing on its essential features” (NCTM,
applying mathematics to realistic problem 2000, p. 206). Representations bolster intuition and
situations through modeling” (p. 67). understanding (Blatto-Vallee, Kelly, Gaustad,
Porter, & Fonzi, 2007) and can help students to
At every level of learning, representations in the communicate, reason, problem solve, connect, and
form of images, simple drawings, graphs, and other learn (Hill, Sharma, Obyrne, & Airey, 2014).
ways to see and think about mathematical ideas Researchers have concluded that visualization is a

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 22

powerful problem-solving tool and can be helpful in At the earliest grade levels, visual representations
all kinds of mathematical problems, not only are particularly helpful in building students’
geometric problems (Van Garderen, 2006). understanding of number and geometry. Visual
“[I]magery based processes play an important role representations can help clarify concepts of tens
in all levels of mathematical problem solving...” and ones in the number systems—concepts that are
(Watson, Campbell, & Collis, 1996, p. 177). made less clear by the structure of the English
language. For young students, these visual
An effective approach to mathematical modeling representations and drawings of tens and ones can
with real world application entails putting students support understanding (Fuson, 2009). In a study
into distinct roles in which they acquire necessary examining first- and second-graders using
information to solve a problem as well as analyze concrete manipulatives to learn symbolic multi-digit
and connect that information in order to solve addition and subtraction procedures, Fuson (1986)
problems with multiple solutions (Kaplinsky, 2018). found that “for many children who made procedural
errors on delayed tests, the mental representation
Visual representations, models, and manipulatives of the procedure with the physical embodiment was
are important in math learning for all students, but a strong enough for them to use it to self-correct their
large body of research also indicates that students symbolic procedure” (p. 35). Other studies
who have special needs or at-risk, are multilingual demonstrate the effectiveness of using concrete
or those having difficulty grasping abstract materials and pictorial representations when
mathematical concepts especially benefit from teaching students with learning disabilities, dyslexia,
visual representations of mathematical ideas, and other language difficulties; such research
including physical objects they use or actions they shows that such approaches successfully aid
perform as they are trying to solve problems (Bouck students with learning disabilities in mastering math
& Park, 2018; NRC, 2001; Riccomini, Witzel, & concepts including algebra skills, basic math facts,
Deshpande, 2022). coin sums, fractions, multiplication, and place value
(Miller & Hudson, 2007).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 23

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math deepens student understanding Through Anchor Charts, students capture oral
with hands-on learning, including by providing a words and phrases learned and build a collective
Manipulative Kit at - and unique to - each grade reference containing illustrations, concepts, and
level. terms within each module.

The program's Digital Toolbox includes online

manipulatives, such as base-ten blocks, students
can use to produce mathematical representations
to make learning more concrete. This tool also
allows students to self-check their own work,
fostering agency and independence.
<<Into Math G3 digital toolbox, Base-Ten Blocks:
Add>>

Professional Learning within the HMH Into Math

Teacher's Edition aids support for representation
and visualization.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 24

MATHEMATICAL LANGUAGE AND
COMMUNICATING MATHEMATICALLY
"Effective teaching of mathematics facilitates "Students who learn to articulate and justify their
discourse among students to build shared own mathematical ideas, reason through their own
understanding of mathematical ideas by analyzing and others' mathematical explanations, and
and comparing student approaches and argument" provide a rationale for their answers develop a
(NCTM, 2014, p. 29). Research has long deep understanding that is critical for future
demonstrated that mathematical proficiency is success in mathematics" (Carpenter, Franke, & Levi,
about far more than numbers. Encouraging 2003, p. 4).
students to verbalize problems before giving a
written response has been found to increase the Discourse within mathematics learning setting,
rate of correct answers (Lovitt & Curtis, 1968) while especially when marked by teachers'
encouraging students to verbalize their current encouragement that students verbalize their
understandings and providing feedback to students thinking and understanding and their provision of
increases learning gains (Gersten & Chard, 2001). feedback to students on that shared verbalization
has been shown to benefit students across grade
Indeed, having students communicate levels in their development of reasoning and
mathematically is an essential best practice in math problem-solving skills (Humphreys & Parker, 2015).
learning. Back in 2000, the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics adopted a Discourse also provides teachers with opportunities
Communication Standard, which notes that for assessment. “Mathematical conversations
““Communication is an essential part of provide opportunities for teachers to hear regularly
mathematics and mathematics education...[that] from their students and to learn about the range of
can support students’ learning of new ideas students have about a particular
mathematical concepts as they act out a situation, mathematical idea, the details supporting students’
draw, use objects, give verbal accounts and ideas, the values students attach to those ideas,
explanations, use diagrams, write, and use and the language students use to express those
mathematical symbols...the communication process ideas. The knowledge teachers gain from engaging
also helps build meaning and permanence for ideas with their students in conversations is essential for
and makes them public” (p. 59-60). teaching for understanding” (Franke, Kazemi, &
Battey, 2007, p. 237).
As with all fields of learning, mathematics has its
own language and "like all language skills, learning A classroom in which meaningful communication
the language of mathematics is an important goal and discussion are primary vehicles for learning and
for all students and can remove barriers to learning in which members co-construct and support one
mathematical ideas” (Dacey, Lynch, & Salemi, 2013, another's understanding is known as a “Math-Talk
p. 149). While it is essential that students learn Learning Community;” within effective math-talk
math-specific vocabulary, it is equally critical that communities, teachers shift from the traditional role
students engage with that terminology and broader of directing all learning to one more like a coach or
mathematical concepts through discourse. facilitator who promotes greater student agency
Mathematical discourse—speaking, writing, or (Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, & Sherin, 2004 & 2015; Saylor
listening about mathematics—is an important way & Walton, 2018). Math talk is an essential
for students to learn and make sense of component of mathematical thinking and to be
mathematics; such communicative exchanges effective math talkers, students need to develop
provide access to ideas, relationships among those skills across the components of questioning,
ideas, strategies, procedures, facts, and explaining mathematical thinking, identifying the
mathematical history as well as foster deeper source of mathematical ideas, taking responsibility
understanding and positive attitudes toward for learning, and mathematical representations.
mathematics (Morgan, Craig, Schütte &, Wagner, (Cuoco, Goldenberg, & Mark, 1996).
2014; Leinwand & Fleischman, 2004; Michaels,
O’Connor, & Resnick, 2008; Smith & Stein, 2011). “The informal and formal representations and
experiences need to be continually connected in a
nurturing ‘math talk’ learning community, which
provides opportunities for all children to talk about
their mathematical thinking and produce and
improve their use of mathematical and ordinary

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 25

language” (Cross, et al., 2009, p. 43). "Math talk" & MacKay, 2020; Russek, 1998; Wilcox & Monroe,
conversations act as scaffolds for students 2011).
developing mathematical language because they
provide opportunities to simultaneously make Writing during math instruction has been found to
meaning and communicate that meaning (Mercer & give students more confidence in their math
Howe, 2012; Zwiers, 2014). The frequency of abilities, create more positive attitudes toward
teachers’ math talk has been shown to correlate math, and help students to understand complex
with students’ increased mathematical knowledge math concepts and effectively problem solve
(Klibanoff, Levine, Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & (Taylor & McDonald, 2007; Williams, 2003). In a
Hedges, 2006). "Math Talk" benefits students at synthesis of empirical research examining 29 studies
different levels of learning and in different contexts, of writing used in elementary and secondary math
including English language learners in particular instruction conducted between 1991 and 2015, it was
(Hufferd-Ackles, et al., 2004 & 2015). Bray and concluded that writing should be implemented
colleagues (2006) found that as students in systematically and explicitly, with appropriate
transitional language classroom engaged in math scaffolds to support the development of math
talk, they “communicate verbally and in writing communication skills (Powell et al., 2017).
about their mathematical ideas, they not only
reflect on and clarify those ideas but also begin to Research also shows that writing during math
become a community of learners” (p. 138). learning has benefit for all students, both low-
achieving (Baxter, Woodward, & Olson, 2005) and
The incorporation of writing into K-12 mathematics high-achieving (Brandenburg, 2002). Writing can be
instruction has over the past few decades become effectively incorporated into the mathematics
increasingly prevalent, including as a means of classroom in a wide variety of ways, both formal
assessing understanding of concepts and and informal (Urquhart, 2009). Researchers also cite
procedures (Powell, Hebert, Cohen, Casa, & journal writing as having positive impacts on math
Firmender, 2017). Numerous studies demonstrate achievement and affective experiences and
evidence that writing is also an important aspect of perceptions of math learning (Page & Clarke, 2014)—
effective math learning across the grade span and including specifically in algebra classrooms, where
that conceptual understanding and problem- journals were found to aid the development of
solving skills improve when students are reasoning, sense-making, and discourse (Yow,
encouraged to write about their mathematical 2015).
thinking (Bossé & Faulconer, 2008; Graham, Kiuhara,

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 26

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math presents each and every student Additionally, Key Academic Vocabulary is labeled
with frequent opportunities to speak, write, read, as Review Vocabulary from prior learning or as New
and listen in the mathematics classroom. HMH Into Vocabulary that is currently being developed while
Math delivers these communication activities, which new and high-utility vocabulary is highlighted at
are greatly amplified through the support and point of use in the Student Edition with support
encouragement provided for teachers, with offered in the Teacher’s Edition.
strategies to produce growth for students within
each language proficiency. The HMH Into Math Teacher's Edition establish and
maintain effective math talk communities, including
As shown in the Embedded Language Development through its recurring Turn and Talk feature.
and Support section above, the program was
designed with four guiding principles to foster
mathematical language use and development in
the classroom: support sense-making; optimize
output; cultivate conversation; and maximize
linguistic and metacognitive awareness. The four
design principles, infused with Mathematics
Language Routines, are the foundation for the
language development practices in HMH Into Math.
HMH Into Math offers a wealth of resources to
support discourse and writing about math. These
The program's approach to vocabulary instruction is
include academic notebooks and math journals,
designed to bridge the gap between academic
with accompanying Put It in Writing prompts that
language and understanding, HMH Into Math
requires students to explain their understanding, as
allows for academic vocabulary to emerge after
well as interactive glossaries. The Learn Together
students explore a concept and develop
feature guides students through Build
understanding. Rather than being front-loaded,
Understanding and Step It Out tasks and facilitate
new vocabulary is highlighted after the concept is
discourse during whole-class instruction to help
taught, connecting students’ understanding of the
students see relationships and how mathematical
concept to the explicit vocabulary term. With this
ideas are connected.
unique approach, English learners simultaneously
boost their disciplinary and English language
abilities.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 27

PURPOSEFUL QUESTIONS
"Effective teaching of mathematics uses purposeful outcomes. Essential questions should develop and
questions to assess and advance students’ deepen students' understanding of important ideas
reasoning and sense making about important and processes so that students can transfer their
mathematical ideas and relationships" (NCTM, 2014, learning within and outside school. McTighe and
p. 35). A major factor impacting teaching and Wiggins suggest that content be unpacked to
learning of mathematics is the quality of classroom identify long-term transfer goals and desired
discourse (Hiebert & Wearne, 1993; Smith & Stein, understandings in a process that entails the
2011). While many teachers of mathematics allow development of associated essential questions. In
students to communicate their mathematical other words, essential questions can be used to
thinking, it is critical that such discussions employ effectively frame key learning goals. Targeted
effective questioning techniques that genuinely understandings and essential questions are
support increased understanding (Childs & Glenn- intrinsically related. In addition to addressing goals
White, 2018). Developing appropriate questioning for learning, essential questions can be
techniques is such an important part of characterized as provocative and generative; they
mathematics teaching and assessment that one are open-ended, thought provoking, require higher
study found "[a] good question may mean the order thinking, spark additional questions; point
difference between constraining thinking and toward larger, transferable ideas; require
encouraging new ideas, and between recalling justification; and recur across the curriculum.
trivial facts and constructing meaning" (Moyer &
Milewicz, 2002, p. 293). NCTM (2014) recommends that teachers present
questions drawing from a research-based
Teachers’ questions are crucial in helping students framework of types that include the following
make connections and learn important categories:
mathematics concepts. Questions are a means of  gathering information: recall of facts, definitions,
both fostering understandings and evaluating and procedures
understandings (Hattie et al., 2017)—particularly in  problem thinking: explain, elaborate, or clarify
the early grades (Stiles, 2016). Questioning thoughts, including the articulation of steps in
techniques shape learning experiences in significant solution method or task completion
ways, including how students see themselves and  making learning visible: discuss mathematical
their capabilities (Goffney, 2018). Classroom structures and make connections among
discussions should be organized in ways that have mathematical ideas and relationships
been shown to support the acquisition of  reflection and justification: reveal deeper
mathematics concepts and language development understanding of reasoning and actions,
(Smith & Stein, 2018). Asking “why?” and “how do you including making arguments for validity of their
know?” is one strategy that effective teachers use work.
to encourage students to explain their thinking, It is also important, NCTM points out, that in
solve problems, and share mathematical strategies addition to a variety of question times, teachers
and ideas with their peers (Clements & Sarama, employ patterns of questioning, including allotting
2004 & 2007). Without expert guidance, discussions sufficient response time, that focus on and extend
in mathematics classrooms can easily devolve into students' current ideas to advance their
the teacher taking over the lesson and providing a understanding and sense-making about essential
“lecture,” on the one hand, or, on the other the mathematical ideas and relationships.
students presenting an unconnected series of
show-and-tell demonstrations" (Smith & Stein, 2018, "[T]he key to purposeful questioning is intentionality.
p. 4). The kinds of questions math teachers ask and Purposeful questioning will not occur through
the kind of support that teachers offer are critical happenstance. These questions will help guide the
on an affective as well as cognitive level, as unpacking of the mathematical task during
questions may either facilitate or undermine individual, small-group, and whole- class discussion.
students' productive efforts and determine whether It is imperative to incorporate questions that lead
students view struggle as a positive endeavor or the discussions to move beyond focusing on students
source of difficulty and frustration (Warshauer, merely obtaining the correct answer, to discussions
2015). that focus on making sense of the problem-solving
process. Focusing questions on the problem-solving
In Essential Questions: Opening Doors to Student process helps to enrich student’s mathematical
Understanding (2013), McTighe and Wiggins explain experiences by allowing the mathematics to move
that questions are important for stimulating student beyond just 'numbers' and 'formulas' to a beautiful
thinking and inquiry as well as for helping teachers concept that is based upon problem-solving"
target standards and other goals for learning (Childs & Glenn-White, 2018, p. 15-16).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 28

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math supports students' mathematical The HMH Into Math Teacher's Edition also provides
practices and processes through strategic question ongoing guidance for posing effective, purposeful
posing plus an abundant support for teachers in questions, such as via the Teacher-to-Teacher
developing effective, purposeful questioning feature.
techniques. Following is a summary of embedded
teacher questioning guidance.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 29

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND
PROCEDURAL FLUENCY
Researchers and experts have identified the presence of misconceptions in mathematics" (Yang
importance of an integrative approach to & Sianturi, 2019, abstract).
mathematics instruction that focuses on and
balances both conceptual understanding and Procedural fluency is a critical component of
procedural fluency (National Mathematics Advisory mathematical proficiency. More than memorizing
Panel, 2008; NRC, 2001; NCTM, 2014). Conceptual facts or steps, it entails the following capacities: to
understanding is knowledge of abstract and apply procedures accurately, efficiently, and
general principles whereas procedural flexibly; to build and modify procedures as well as
understanding is knowledge of the steps or actions transfer them to different problems and contexts;
between a goal that is then applied with varying and to recognize when one strategy or procedure is
degrees of fluency (Rittle-Johnson, Schneider, & more appropriate to apply than another. In
Star, 2015). "Effective teaching of mathematics developing procedural fluency, students need
builds fluency with procedures on a foundation of experience integrating concepts and procedures
conceptual understanding so that students, over and understanding patterns among them. Students
time, become skillful in using procedures flexibly as also need to build on familiar procedures in the
they solve contextual and mathematical problems" process of creating their own informal strategies
(NCTM, 2014, p. 42). and procedures via opportunities to support and
justify their choices of appropriate procedures.
"Procedural knowledge and conceptual
understandings must be closely linked” (NRC, 2005, To be mathematically proficient, students need a
p. 232) and effective mathematics cannot have one deep and flexible knowledge of a variety of
without the other, for concepts and procedures procedures, along with an ability to make critical
develop in tandem and iteratively, with gains in one judgments about which procedures or strategies
supporting gains in the other (NCTM, 2014; Rittle- are appropriate for use in particular situations—and
Johnson et al., 2015). As charted by Larson and the goal for students developing procedural fluency
Kanold (2016), among math educators in the United is to acquire a body of known facts and
States, a longstanding tension has existed between generalizable methods that will allow them to
understanding and fluency; on one side is an efficiently and accurately solve varied problems
emphasis on exploration facilitated by sensory (NRC, 2001 & 2005). Finally, to strengthen their
experiences with objects and open-ended activity understanding and skill of procedural fluency,
and on the other is a focus on rote practice and students need consistent, meaningful, engaging,
worksheets without attention to the construction of purposeful—decidedly not rote—practice that is
meaning. distributed over time (Baroody et al., 2009; Fuson &
Murata, 2007; NCTM, 2015; Rohrer, 2009).
However, as Fuson (2009) urges in addressing this
divide, students learning math are best served by a When students are able to connect procedures and
balanced approach that is child-centered and a concepts, when learning is meaningful, retention
structure that is teacher-guided, where improves and students are better able to apply
individualized pathways driven by each student's what they know in different situations. If students
needs and progress receive a dual focus on both memorize and practice procedures without
understanding and fluency. This approach helps conceptual understanding, they lack capacity to
avoid mathematical teaching without learning, in apply procedures and the motivation to used them
which rote practice and worksheets are utilized effectively (Fuson, Kalchman, & Bransford, 2005;
without a focus on meaning-making. Hiebert, 1999). A strong evidence base (see, for
example, Baroody, 2006; Fuson & Beckmann,
Conceptual understanding benefits students 2012/2013; Fuson, et al., 2005; Fuson & Murata,
because it allows them to make connections 2007; Russell, 2000) suggests that to develop
between current knowledge and new topics and students’ fluency in procedures, teachers should:
thereby learn more quickly. Additionally, conceptual build on a foundation of conceptual understanding;
understanding helps students avoid critical errors support students in looking for patterns; allow
because they can readily assess the students to flexibly choose among solution
reasonableness of solutions (NRC, 2001). "Judging methods; and offer distributed opportunities for
the reasonableness of computational results is purposeful, meaningful practice (not rote, repeated
pivotal for students to understand mathematical practice). Practice is indeed key to developing
concepts. This domain is the most sensitive to the procedural fluency. Students should have

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 30

opportunities for practice that are brief, engaging, For students to build conceptual understanding and
purposeful, and distributed over time (Rohrer, 2009). procedural fluency, they must extend their new
knowledge and skill into application via processes
Rittle-Johnson (2017) recommends three specific that also allow students to demonstrate strategic
cognitive activities within learning tasks that competence and adaptive reasoning (NRC, 2001).
promote the development of conceptual Additionally, correctly applying mathematical
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural knowledge depends on solid conceptual
flexibility simultaneously. One of these is knowledge and procedural fluency. Any meaningful
comparison: comparing alternative processes for application of mathematical knowledge draws on
solving a problem as well as comparing correct both conceptual understanding and procedural
versus incorrect procedures in solving a problem. fluency and provides a real-world, problem-based
Another is self-explaining: generating explanations context (David & Greene, 2007; Cross et al., 2009;
to make sense of new information as well as Gaddy, Harmon, Barlow, Milligan, & Huang, 2014;
explanations of solutions to math problems via in Hiebert et al., 1996; NCTM, 2014). If students attempt
part by connecting new information and to begin solving real-world problems while lacking
explanation to background knowledge. Third is knowledge and fluency, problems are made
exploration before instruction. Students who have unnecessarily, perhaps prohibitively, challenging.
opportunity to solve an unfamiliar problem or devise Yet at the same time, educators should not save all
their own formulas and approaches to an unfamiliar application for the end of learning progressions.
problem in advance of receiving teacher-directed Application can be motivational and interesting,
instruction typically demonstrate more positive and students at all levels need to connect the
gains and outcomes. mathematics they are learning to the world around
them (Alberti, 2013).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 31

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
Today’s standards require a focused, coherent, and  Build Understanding tasks are learning
rigorous curriculum to ensure students develop an opportunities designed to help students
in-depth understanding of mathematical concepts understand lesson concepts. Teachers take a
and language. Rigorous instruction must include a more active role, guiding discussion during whole-
balanced approach, giving equal emphasis to class instruction.
conceptual understanding, procedural skill and  Step It Out tasks build upon students’ conceptual
fluency, and application. understanding to promote procedural
understanding and fluency. Teachers help
Lessons in HMH Into Math form a coherent students understand why the procedures are
sequence called a Learning Arc, designed to build a efficient and how they can be applied to solve
foundation of conceptual understanding before similar problem types.
teaching procedures. Opportunities for application
are found throughout. An emphasis is placed on The HMH Into Math Teacher's Edition provides
connections between concepts and skills. The additional, ongoing guidance for developing math
Learning Arc ensures delivery of rigorous instruction. concepts and fluency. <

The program's Support Sense-Making feature

fosters the development of conceptual
understanding for all students while also providing
HMH Into Math Learning Tasks carry out an language development support, particularly for
integrative, iterative approach to developing English Learners.
students' conceptual understanding and
procedural fluency:
 Spark Your Learning tasks promote conceptual
understanding. During these low floor/high ceiling
tasks, students select manipulatives or
representations that serve as their entry point.
Teachers provide just-in-time support, helping
students engage in meaningful discourse and
learn to persevere. Teachers then lead the class
to conceptual understanding by selecting
students to share their solutions and discuss their
mathematical reasoning.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 32

PRODUCTIVE PERSEVERANCE
Success in mathematics depends on at least two to develop curiosity and stamina (Goldenberg,
common components: practice and perseverance Mark, Kang, Fries, Carter, & Cordner, 2015; Pascale,
(Larson, 2016). "An effective teacher provides 2016). The kinds of questions teachers ask and the
students with appropriate challenges, encourages kind of support that teachers offer are critical, as
perseverance in solving problems, and supports they either facilitate or undermine the productive
productive struggle in learning mathematics” efforts of students’ struggles and determine
(NCTM, 2014, p. 11). Through productive whether students view struggle as a positive
perseverance, students grapple with the issues and endeavor or the source of difficulty and frustration
are able to find solutions on their own, allowing (Warshauer, 2015). Timing of support also plays a
them to persist and build resilience as they pursue vital role. When scaffolding is given to students
learning and understanding (Jackson & Lambert, before they have the opportunity to make sense of
2010), realizing that through effort and tenacity a challenging task independently, they are inhibited
alongside sense making and problem solving, they in the process of developing productive
are capable of doing well in mathematics (NCTM, perseverance. “All too often, so much support is
2014). provided through the initial scaffolding that the
cognitive demand of the task is significantly
To cultivate mathematical habits of mind, teachers decreased (Boston & Wilhelm, 2015). If this sort of
also must create a classroom culture that scaffolding is provided upfront for students who
demonstrates how challenge is a natural part of the struggle, then these same students are denied
learning process allows students to see the benefits access to cognitively demanding tasks. When
of perseverance, and provides specific descriptive access is denied, equity becomes an issue” (Dixon,
feedback to students on their progress related to 2018, online).
their efforts (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Star, 2015).
This attitudinal state with regards to challenge Other practices that support productive
yields numerous positive affective outcomes and perseverance include heterogeneous grouping,
boosts academic achievement (Dweck, 2006, 2008, effective teacher-directed questioning, setting
& 2015; Hiebert & Grouws, 2007; NCTM, 2014). problems in a setting familiar to students and that
draws from their everyday lives, plus goal setting
Research shows that productive perseverance is before and reflection after problem solving
necessary to the process of learning mathematics (Pascale, 2016) plus "low floor/high ceiling" learning
with understanding. When students are given tasks (Sircar & Titus, 2015).
opportunity to grapple with ideas, make mistakes,
persist through difficulties, and arrive at solutions, Productive perseverance makes important
learning outcomes improve (Hiebert & Grouws, contributions in the promotion of a growth mindset.
2007; Kapur, 2014; Warshauer, 2015). It has also A growth mindset within mathematics emphasizes
been found that students given time to make teaching and learning as processes that cultivate
mistakes and persist through their struggles mathematical abilities; stresses that success and
ultimately show greater understanding on posttest learning are reflections of effort and not
measures than their counterparts (Kapur, 2010). intelligence; and promotes a belief that all students
Perseverance through problem solving also are capable of participating and achieving in
encourages students to think about their own mathematics. Society has traditionally valued the
thinking and to discover that authentic learning math learner who can memorize well and calculate
happens without rushing to simply find the correct fast, rather than others who possess equal potential
answer (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). "Developing a but may be deeper, slower, and possibly more
productive disposition requires frequent creative. These earlier mindsets have contributed to
opportunities to make sense of mathematics, to persistent negative perceptions within mathematics
recognize the benefits of perseverance, and to education specifically—and the evolution toward
experience the rewards of sense making in pervasive growth mindsets are necessary if all
mathematics” (NRC, 2001, p. 131). students are to be successful math learners.

To effectively foster students' productive Teachers should foster and display a growth
dispositions, teachers must carefully select tasks mindset by valuing all students’ thinking and efforts
and provide reassurance and guidance that while also relying on pedagogical practices such as
students need to complete the tasks—but without differentiated tasks, mixed-ability groupings, and
diminishing the cognitive demand of the task or praise for students’ contributions and perseverance
giving students too much help or direct answers. within their mathematical learning (Dweck, 2006,
Students need sufficient time, not only to persist 2008, & 2015; NCTM, 2014). Schools and classrooms
through challenging and devise solutions, but also that reinforce growth mindset messaging make

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 33

learning enjoyable and place the focus on that
learning rather than on students’ performance
(Yeager, Walton, & Cohen, 2013). Setting and
supporting rigorous expectations and a genuine
belief that student effort and effective instruction
outweigh “smarts” and life circumstances increase
students’ opportunities to learn—and create a more
equitable learning experience (NCTM, 2014).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 34

HOWHMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math provides ongoing opportunities for HMH Into Math supports teachers in fostering
students to persevere in their learning productively positive a learning mindset for students that
and, when and if needed, with appropriate encourages them to persist through challenging
scaffolding. Spark Your Learning activities engage content and tasks and perceive themselves as
students in a productive perseverance task in which capable learners.
they explain mathematical ideas and reason about
mathematical relationships. Accompanying Teacher
Edition content supports teachers in guiding
process with effective questioning and scaffolding
to ensure positive cognitive and affective
outcomes—and increased understanding.

I Can statements for students aid students in

seeing themselves as capable, persistent learnings.
Accompanying I Can Scales provide support in self-
assessment and reflection.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 35

EVIDENCE OF STUDENT THINKING
Research is increasingly finding that, particularly in well as written ones. Good sources for identifying
science and math, teachers' engagement with indicators of student thinking is a math curriculum's
student thinking is critical for supporting student learning trajectories describing how students'
learning (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, understanding develops over time (Clements &
2003; Dyer & Sherin, 2015) and especially when part Sarama, 2004; Sztajn et al., 2012). It is important
of a larger responsive approach in which teachers that the eliciting of thinking happens strategically,
use evidence of student thinking to infer and adapt via deliberate questions aimed at identifying
instructional objectives (Hammer, Goldberg, & specific understandings and conceptual gaps as
Fargason, 2012). To discover what students know or well as consideration of common patterns of
don’t know, what they do well or poorly, the teacher reasoning that are revealed in a student's thinking,
must closely examine students’ work. “Effective which include difficulties, errors, and misconceptions
teaching of mathematics uses evidence of student (Bray, 2013). To be effective, evidence gathering
thinking to assess progress toward mathematical and subsequent responsive action must happen
understanding and to adjust instruction continually while learning unfolds and before remediation
in ways that support and extend learning” (NCTM, becomes necessary (Heritage, 2008; Leahy et al.,
2014, p. 53). 2005; NCTM, 2014).

A focus on an evidence approach entails specificity The process of using evidence of student thinking to
and intentionality (NCTM, 2014) and it is a critical guide instruction necessarily includes teacher
component of effective, systematic formative feedback. Supportive responses from teachers
assessment (Wiliam, 2011). The approach begins include asking students to restate problems in their
with a clear understanding of what constitutes own words, reminding them of available strategies
indication of students’ mathematical thinking and or tools, or to change a problem to easier numbers.
what is important to notice about it as well as Extending responses have students use advanced
planning ahead of each lesson for ways to elicit strategies to solve the same or similar problem or
that information, via deliberate questioning that have students compare and contrast strategies in
reaches every student during and after the lesson. selection which to apply. While there is no one-size-
Then, once the information has been elicited, it is fits-all way to respond, the aim should always be to
also necessary to interpret what the evidence foster greater conceptual understanding and
means with respect to learning goals and decide procedural fluency (Jacobs & Ambrose, 2008;
how to respond on the basis of student NCTM, 2014). To be meaningful and impactful, the
understanding and progress toward those goals teacher feedback itself needs to cause thinking;
(Chamberlin 2005; Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp 2010; while grades, scores, and comments like "good job"
Leahy et al., 2005; NCTM, 2014; Sherin & van Es, don't generate student thinking, what does is
2003). reference to a rubric when appropriate or a
response that addresses specifically what a student
Evidence of student thinking takes a variety of needs to do to improve (Leahy et al., 2005).
forms, such as verbal responses and gestures as

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 36

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math supports teachers in identifying opportunities The Teacher's Edition provides sample student work plus
to use evidence of student thinking and interpreting that guidance on how to identify and remedy common
evidence, such as through the What to Watch For Teacher mathematical errors as well as support understanding within
Edition feature. specific learning scenarios.

In the program's Critique, Correct, and Clarify feature,

students correct work that is not their own with a flawed
explanation, argument, or solution method and share with a
partner to reflect then refine the sample work.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 37

SUPPORTING ALL
LEARNERS
"[W]e embrace a perspective on equity that supports teaching practices and reflective tools focused on
empowerment of the whole child...All students, in light of their humanity—their personal experiences,
backgrounds, histories, languages, and physical and emotional well-being—must have the opportunity and
support to learn rich mathematics that fosters meaning making, empowers decision making, and critiques,
challenges, and transforms inequities and injustices. Equity does not mean that every student should receive
identical instruction. Instead, equity demands that responsive accommodations be made as needed to promote
equitable access, attainment, and advancement in mathematics education for each student" (Aguirre, Mayfield-
Ingram, & Martin, 2013, p. 9).

Early experiences with mathematics yield effects well beyond classrooms, with consequences affecting
economic prosperity, well-being, and quality of life. While mathematics achievement on every scale requires that
all students be expected to meet rigorous standards, each student comes to school with a unique background,
skill set, perspective, strengths, and needs—and therefore must receive effective, individualized support to realize
and enjoy success in math learning (Clements & Sarama, 2020; NCTM, 2014; National Mathematics Advisory
Panel, 2008; Shapka, Doemene, & Keating, 2006). All children, including those from historically underserved
populations are capable of learning and performing in math at high levels and a large body of research has
documented that significant positive outcomes that are possible when schools and teachers address issues of
equity and access (Gutiérrez, 2013; Kisker, Lipka, Adams, Rickard, Andrew-Ihrke, Yanez, & Millard, 2012; Lawrence-
Brown, 2004; Lipka Sharp, Adams, & Sharp, 2007; McKenzie, Skrla, Scheurich, Rice, & Hawes, 2011). "Providing
young children with extensive, high-quality early mathematics instruction can serve as a sound foundation for
later learning in mathematics and contribute to addressing long-term systematic inequities in educational
outcomes" (Cross, et al., 2009, p. 2).

HMH Into Math supports students equitably and effectively by providing access to highest quality mathematics
instruction with embedded differentiation to meet wide-ranging needs. HMH Into Math also supports teachers
by providing tools to help create nurturing classroom environments that facilitate deep learning of mathematics
for all.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 38

PROMOTING ACCESSS, EQUITY AND
RIGOR FOR ALL LEARNERS
For over two decades, the National Council of Larson (2018) emphasizes that while improved
Teachers of Mathematics has advocated for more access to quality mathematics instruction and
equitable practices that ensure all students college pathways remains essential, research
succeed in learning math as well as for recognition indicates that other critical factors must also be
that equity requires diversity of support. From part of efforts to remedy issues of equity. These
NCTM's Principles & Standards for School include: fostering positive mathematical
Mathematics, (2000). “All students, regardless of experiences and identities that empower all
their personal characteristics, backgrounds, or students; cultivating equitable mathematical
physical challenges, must have opportunities to discussions within classrooms; and inspiring today's
study—and support to learn—mathematics” (p. 12). youth to embrace and engage with a math-centric
future.
"An excellent mathematics program requires that all
students have access to a high-quality In addressing issues of equity and access, calls are
mathematics curriculum, effective teaching and increasing for educators to shift away from
learning, high expectations, and the support and perceptions that students from historically
resources needed to maximize their learning disadvantaged backgrounds are deficient; rather,
potential" NCTM, 2014. p. 59). Despite continually educators are encouraged to adopt a culturally
growing demands for a STEM-trained workforce responsive approach in which the distinct cultural,
(Langdon et al., 2011) as well as shrinking linguistic, and environmental experiences and
achievement gaps, historically underrepresented environmental students bring to school are viewed
groups that include females, African American, as assets to be respected, embraced, and
Latinx, Native American, English learners (ELs), leveraged to optimize learning for individual
students in poverty and those with disabilities students as well as their peers (Aguirre, et al. 2013;
remain marginalized in STEM education and Flores, 2007; Gutiérrez, 2013; Lawrence-Brown,
professions, including specifically in mathematics 2004; NCTM, 2000, 2014 & 2019; Ukpokodu, 2011;
(Anwar, Bascou, Menekse, & Kardgar 2019; Jackson, Xenofontos, 2019. “[M]any of the critical challenges
Mohr-Schroeder, Bush, Maiorca, Roberts, Yost, & facing racial and ethnic minority students in the
Fowler, 2021; Kang, Barton, Tan, Simpkins, Rhee, & formation of strong, positive mindsets for academic
Turner, 2019; Sneider & Ravel, 2021). achievement can be alleviated through the careful
work of creating supportive contexts that provide
American classrooms today are increasingly diverse; consistent and unambiguous messages about
individual students have wide-ranging needs but minority students’ belonging, capability, and value
they are also best served when their own in classrooms and schools” (Farrington, Roderick,
experiences and backgrounds are valued and Allensworth, Nagaoka, Keyes, Johnson, & Beechum,
leveraged in the course their learning experiences. 2012, p. 34).
All students need to learn mathematics and, with
appropriate, differentiated support, all students are Research (see NCTM, 2019, Xenofontoas, 2019 and
capable of success in mathematics. It is vital that others, including those cited above) suggest the
educators understand that achievement gaps are following equitable, culturally responsive teaching
not caused by factors such as cultural differences, practices:
poverty, and parental education levels, but rather  setting clear, rigorous expectations for all
by pervasive inequalities that have historically learners while also attending to each
afforded significantly fewer resources and students' distinct cultural, cognitive,
opportunities to certain groups (Aguirre, et al. 2013; emotional, psychological well-being and
Cross et al., 2009; Flores, 2007; Gutiérrez, 2013; needs;
Lawrence-Brown, 2004; NCTM, 2014; Ukpokodu,  providing a range of high-quality, effective,
2011). "Acknowledging and addressing factors that and equitably distributed resources to
contribute to differential outcomes among groups support students.
of students are critical to ensuring that all students  drawing on students' unique funds of
routinely have opportunities to experience high- knowledge, recognizing diverse forms of
quality mathematics instruction, learn challenging culture, perspectives, language, and
mathematics content, and receive the support discourse are assets for learning and within
necessary to be successful" (NCTM, 2022, online). a classroom environment;
 allowing adequate time for students to
learn;

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 39

  establishing protocols and norms for broad learning are removed, teaching allows for flexible
participation in individual classroom methods of presentation, expression, and
activities and the learning process as a engagement by offering multiple examples,
whole; employing multiple media and formats, engaging in
 implementing differentiated processes for supported practices, and allowing flexible
instruction that foster students' opportunities for demonstrating skill (Strangman,
mathematical thinking and broaden Hall, & Meyer, 2004).
students' productive engagement with
mathematics in ways that also support Attending to access and equity also means
individual students as needed, meeting recognizing that inequitable learning opportunities
them at their developmental level with a can exist in any setting, diverse or homogenous,
positive, appropriate level of challenge; whenever only some, but not all, teachers
 positioning students as capable, defiant of implement rigorous curricula and equitable
stereotypes, and agents in their own teaching practices that support all students.
learning and building a classroom culture in "Abundant research has documented the significant
which students view their peers that way; outcomes that are possible when schools and
 attending to race and culture and other teachers systematically address obstacles to
differences and experiences; and success in mathematics for students from
 monitoring student progress through fair historically underserved populations...The question
and accurate assessment and making is not whether all students can succeed in
needed accommodations accordingly; and mathematics but whether the adults organizing
mathematics learning opportunities can alter
Additionally, to create an environment in which the traditional beliefs and practices to promote success
barriers that limit comprehensive student access to for all" (NCTM, 2014, p. 60-61).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 40

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math provides each and every student HMH Into Math lessons integrate growth mindset
with equitable access to quality, evidence-based strategies and social-emotional learning to create
mathematics curriculum and pedagogy. In one way a culture where students and teachers embrace
that the program supports equity, all students, learning. Other features support teachers in tapping
including and especially English learners, are into and celebrating the unique background
empowered with frequent opportunities to speak, knowledge each student brings to the classroom.
write, read, and listen in their classroom community.
Research shows the need for a shift in when and
I Can statements and scales promote students'
how language learners are taught mathematical
productive perseverance and a sense of belonging
vocabulary. HMH Into Math delivers these
as well as self-reflection.
opportunities, which are greatly amplified through
the guidance and encouragement provided for
teachers, with strategies to produce growth for
students within each language proficiency.

HMH Into Math also ensures equity through

targeted and specific instruction. Teachers often
want to group students based on the results of an
assessment for differentiated nstruction or math
centers. Analyzing item-level data and matching
resources to address the needs of each and every
student in real time ensure greater equity for
greater student outcomes. Grouping students
based on the valid and reliable results of an Into
Math assessment is quick and easy.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 41

MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALL LEARNERS
Teachers in the 21st century face both the challenge Differentiated instruction is a well-established,
and opportunity of meeting the needs of an evidence-based, organized approach to flexibly
increasingly diverse student population, alter teaching that recognizes all learners as
representing a wide array of cultural and linguistic capable; maximizes learning for all students; and
backgrounds, cognitive skills, prior knowledge, yields positive outcomes across achievement levels
readiness, interests, motivations, home situations, as well as content areas, including mathematics
and learning styles. While it is critical that all (Dacey et al., 2013; National Mathematics Advisory
students have high expectations for learning as well Panel, 2008; Stetson, Stetson, & Anderson, 2007;
as access to high-quality instruction, if success is to Tomlinson, 1999). Differentiated approaches to
be achieved broadly, it is also essential that all instruction recognize and support the classroom as
students receive the supports and differentiation an inclusive community where students are
each needs, regardless of their relative proficiency nourished as individual learners and provided with
levels or socio-economic contexts (Aguirre et al., an appropriate, motivating balance of challenge
2013; Gutiérrez, 2013; NCTM, 2014 & 2019; Tomlinson, and success. In effective differentiated
1997 & 2005). "Equity does not mean that every environments, and all learners—those struggling and
student should receive identical instruction; instead, those advanced—can be successful (Lawrence-
it demands that reasonable and appropriate Brown, 2004). Differentiated classrooms are
accommodations be made as needed to promote "responsive to students' varying readiness levels,
access and attainment for all students” (NCTM, varying interests, and varying learning profiles”
2000, p. 12). (Kalbfleisch & Tomlinson, 1998, p. 54) and offer
students varying levels of expectations for task
Students struggling with mathematics benefit from completion within a lesson or unit based on their
early identification as well as resolutions that may specific needs (McLeskey, Waldron, So, Swanson, &
prevent subsequent difficulties (Gersten, Clarke, & Loveland, 2001).
Mazzocco, 2007). To help all students learn to think
mathematically, teachers must meet them where To differentiate instruction, teachers can adjust the
they are. As Vygotsky (1978) noted in his seminal content of what is being learned, adjust the process
research, “Optimal learning takes place within of learning (by providing additional supportive
students’ ‘zones of proximal development’—when strategies, for example, or adjusting pacing), and
teachers assess students’ current understanding tailor the expected outcomes (assessments,
and teach new concepts, skills, and strategies at an products, or tasks) of how learning is assessed
according level.” Research continues to support the (Tomlinson, 2001). In differentiation, modifications
notion that for learning to be attained, activities take place at the point of instruction; teachers are
must be at the right level for the learner (Tomlinson responsive to what happens in the classroom and
& Allan, 2000; Valencia, 2007) with scaffolding as are flexible in their approach to teaching, adjusting
called for by Vygotsky. the curriculum and presentation of information to
learners rather than expecting students to modify
However, scaffolding for students who generally themselves for the curriculum (Strangman, et al.,
performing at lower levels of achievement in math 2004).
cannot be provided immediately upfront before
students have an opportunity to grapple with new Additionally, it is important to leverage the
material; if that happens, students are being denied experiences students bring to the classroom;
access to rigor and then the practice is not students whose backgrounds are devalued or
equitable (Dixon, 2018). “All too often, so much unrecognized become alienated and disengaged
support is provided through the initial scaffolding from the learning process whereas when students
that the cognitive demand of the task is are viewed as having lived knowledge that is a
significantly decreased (Boston & Wilhelm, 2015). strength and resource, their learning is accelerated
Rigor for all students is essential to equity. and their achievement is supported (Lawrence-
Brown, 2004). “We argue that students need to
In the math classroom, teachers encounter students learn mathematics in light of who they are and the
who are on grade, above grade, below grade as diverse gifts that they bring to their experiences
well as English language learners, students with every day” (Aguirre et al., 2013, p. 10).
special needs, students who are gifted, and
students with varying learning styles and cultural Learning is an active process of engagement and,
backgrounds. “[M]athematics instructors must recursively, engagement leads to motivation which
respond to the diverse needs of individual students . leads to learning. When students are interested in
. . using differentiated instruction, a process of what they are learning, they will spend the time and
proactively modifying instruction based on energy needed for learning to occur. Effective
students’ needs” (Chamberlin & Powers, 2010, p. 113). teachers know that students must be engaged by

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 42

the content and activities presented to them to be
motivated to persist in the learning process and,
ultimately, to succeed in achieving learning targets
(Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Guthrie &
Humenick, 2004). Research shows that effective
STEM education capitalizes on students’ interests
and experiences; identifies and build on what
students know; and provides experiences to
actively engage students in STEM-related practices
and sustain their interest (NRC, 2011). When students
are actively engaged in the process of observing,
reasoning, and making connections through hands-
on learning, they acquire necessary skills and ways
of thinking (Stewart, Cartier & Passmore, 2005).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 43

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math provides a multitude of HMH Into Math also offers WIDA-aligned resources
differentiation options that ensure growth for each specifically for English Learners. These include
and every student through resources based on Differentiated Language Routines and Key
individual and data-driven needs. These features Vocabulary in the Teacher Edition as well as Point-
support all students, and are specifically designed of-Use Multilingual Differentiation in the Teacher's
for multilingual learners and those from historically Edition wrap of every lesson. The Bilingual Math
underserved backgrounds and those with special Board includes a graphic organizer that students
needs. The program offers a variety of assessment can use within language routines. Other supports
and accompanying item-level data analyses plus include Spanish Lesson Reteach and Multilingual
and teaching resources to address the progress of Glossaries. Waggle’s robust support for English
each and every student in real time ensure greater learners help students access challenging language
equity for greater student outcomes. By drilling and terms, including, idioms, cognates, and cultural
down into the data, teachers can analyze which references.
items students have answered incorrectly or
correctly. The items can be reviewed with a class,
groups, or individual students.

Teacher Tabletop Flipcharts also contain leveled

scaffolded support for English learners. These
scaffolding recommendations ensure teachers
maintain cognitive complexity level required for
mathematical reasoning while supporting students'
language development.

The program's differentiation supports include:

 Flexible grouping aids: Tabletop Flipchart mini-
lessons or other small-group options are provided
in the Teacher’s Edition.
 Independent Work: On Your Own provides
independent practice to reinforce lesson content.
 Math Centers: provided collaborative centers with
the leveled resources outlined in the Teacher’s
Edition.
 Waggle: supplements HMH Into Math instruction
with adaptive, targeted student practice.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 44

ASSESSMENT, DATA, AND
REPORTS
Assessment across a wide range of formats, timelines, and data points is fundamental to successful mathematics
teaching and learning. "An excellent mathematics program ensures that assessment is an integral part of
instruction, provides evidence of proficiency with important mathematics content and practices, includes a
variety of strategies and data sources, and informs feedback to students, instructional decisions, and program
improvement" (NCTM, 2014, p. 5).

Historically marginalized students have also historically been disadvantaged by state and national standardized
tests; high-quality assessment at the classroom level, including also diagnostic and needs-based assessment, is
essential to determine how students are faring across a range of domains and what they need currently and
going forward (Ed Trust, 2020; Garcìa & Weiss, 2020; Tarasawa & Samuel, 2021).

HMH Into Math provides ongoing, balanced assessment and reporting that additionally utilizes digital
technologies to empower teachers with data-driven decision making and tools for effective instructional
planning. HMH Into Math also provides grouping and resource recommendations. This solution yields critical
feedback loops that encourage students’ self-assessment and reflection while freeing teachers from guesswork
and time-consuming assessment reporting and subsequent material selections and planning. These approaches
to evaluation of learning support optimal instructional practices and drive positive outcomes for each and every
student.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 45

MONITORING STUDENT PROGRESS
Assessment is an essential component of effective assessment improves learning outcomes (Mayes,
instruction and a process by which teachers can Chase, & Walker, 2008). Diagnostic assessments
continuously monitor student understanding and provide data about students' prior knowledge and
progress toward meeting learning goals. A wealth current skill levels within a domain as well as
of studies indicates that regular use of assessment preconceptions or misunderstandings regarding
to monitor student progress can mitigate and learning material (Ketterlin-Geller & Yovanoff, 2009).
prevent mathematical weaknesses and improve A screening tool given to students at the opening of
student learning outcomes (Black & Wiliam, 1998a, the school year can help identify those who are at-
1998b, Clarke & Shinn, 2004; Kingston & Nash, 2011; risk or need additional support (Fuchs & Fuchs,
Klute, Apthorp, Harlacher, & Reale, 2017; Lee, Chung, 2006).
Zhang, Abedi, & Warschauer, 2020; Stecker, Fuchs,
& Fuchs, 2005; Wiliam, 2010 & 2011). "[P]roviding Research has long established that formative
teachers and students with specific information on assessment is also integral to an effective
how each student is performing seems to enhance mathematics program (Black & Wiliam, 1998a, 1998b;
achievement consistently...the effect of such Wiliam, 2018). The phrase “formative assessment”
practice is substantial" (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002, encompasses the wide variety of activities—formal
p. 67). and informal—that teachers employ throughout the
learning process to gather this kind of instructional
“[T]eachers using assessment for learning data to assess student understanding and to make
continually look for ways in which they can generate and adapt instructional decisions. Formative
evidence of student learning, and they use this assessment moves testing from the end into the
evidence to adapt their instruction to better meet middle of instruction, to guide teaching and
their students' learning needs" (Leahy, et al., 2005, learning as it occurs (Heritage, 2007; Tibbitt, 2020).
p. 23). Effective assessment tools allow teachers to According to Wiliam's 2010 (framework for formative
collect data about what is working and what is not assessment in math learning embeds the following
so that they can take precise, swift, and effective key processes within instruction: making goals,
action to better serve students. "Assessment should making progress toward the goals, and making
not merely be done to students; it should also be better progress.
done for students, to guide and enhance their
learning (NCTM, 2000, p. 22) In its review of studies examining formative
assessment, the National Mathematics Advisory
Teachers can collect a variety of variety of Panel (2008) concluded that "use of formative
evidence before, during, and after instruction to assessments benefited students at all ability levels"
evaluate progress and adjust instruction with the (p. 46). However, formative assessment is especially
goal of best supporting each student. While timing beneficial for lower-performing and at-risk
of administration throughout the school year is students, including those historically underserved
important, it is also critical that a broad range of due to ethnicity, poverty, and disabilities and those
measures and tasks be utilized diagnostically, enrolled in special education programs; monitoring
formatively, and summatively to compile a student progress and directly involving students in
comprehensive picture of a student's growth and the classroom assessment process shrinks
track that growth over time (National Mathematics achievement gaps and improve overall
Advisory Panel, 2008; NCTM, 2000 & 2014). achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998a & 1998b; NCTM,
Curriculum designed and developed for 21st-century 2020; Tibbitt, 2020; Xenofontoas, 2019).
learning should use formative assessment to “(a)
make learning goals clear to students; (b) In a study of curriculum-based measurement, when
continuously monitor, provide feedback, and teachers administered outcomes-based
respond to students’ learning progress; and (c) assessments regularly to monitor student progress
involve students in self- and peer assessment” and used data to make appropriate adjustments to
(Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st instruction, students showed significant gains
Century Skills, 2012, p. 182). (Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Research also
shows that regularly assessing and providing
To make effective decisions about students' feedback to students on their formative assessment
instructional needs, teachers rely on diagnostic is a highly effective tool for teachers to produce
assessment. Tailoring instruction and supplemental significant—and often substantial—gains in student
practice based on the results of valid diagnostic

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 46

learning and performance (Black & Wiliam, 1998a & 2010; Wiliam, 2010). In a study of the impact of
1998b). metacognitive assessment on mathematics
achievement, it was found that, on both a posttest
The benefits of effective classroom assessment and a retention test, students who practiced
practices are augmented when students are given reflective strategies performed significantly higher
ongoing opportunities for self-initiated than students who did not use the strategies (Bond
metacognitive self-reflection (Desoete & De & Ellis, 2013).
Craene, 2019; Lee et al., 2020; Schneider & Artelt,

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 47

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math provides variety of options for Formal and informal assessments throughout the
ongoing assessment and aids to monitor of student learning arc design and lesson setup create
progress and flexibly adjust instruction based on opportunities to check if students are mastering
data about class and individual needs. These content and help teachers when differentiating
resources are available at the module and lesson instruction based on student performance and
level. Format and features include the following: data.
 A Prerequisite Skills Inventory is given at
the beginning of each module.
 Formative assessments are available for
every lesson.
 Learning aids are available—including
helpful hints, corrective feedback, and
multiple attempts.
 Wrap Ups to summarize learning and
check understanding via Exit Tickets (short
tasks or problems that indicates mastery of
the lesson); Put It in Writing (journal
prompts that require students to explain Ed®, the HMH learning platform, makes it possible
their understanding; and I Can Scales (a for teachers to effectively and efficiently leverage
scale from 1 to 4 to promote student self- data for instruction. Interactive scoring reports show
reflection). progress, identify needs, and lead to targeted and
 Grouping recommendations are provided specific support for students at any level. After
from Are You Ready? test results. administering any assessment, teachers can
immediately review class performance on Ed and
 Frequent flexible grouping occurs 10–20 quickly see a class-level breakdown of
times per year compared to typical 2–3
performance, as well as which item(s) should be
times per year.
reviewed with which students.
 Digital lessons and assessments are
available by teacher assignment.
 Additional downloadable resources are
available for the class and student level.
 Interactive reports are available by
skill/standards.
 Two forms of each Module Test are
available with multiple assessment item
types.
From there, teachers can select “Groups” to have
 Constructed-response items are available Ed sort the students into performance groups
in the print version. automatically. Once students are sorted, teachers
 Unit-level performance tasks are available can adjust any groups by moving students around
in the print version. and naming each group. Teachers can also then
 Print and online versions are available. search for relevant resources by standards and the
 Spanish audio and text are available at curriculum table of contents. Small groups are one
Grades K–2. way of differentiating to address targeted and
 Spanish text is available at Grades 3–12. specific needs of the groups.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 48

EVALUATING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
"The results of large-scale mathematics or evaluate (Hibbard, 1996), solve problems, and
assessments should not be used as the sole source create a response or product. Performance-based
of information to make high-stakes decisions about tasks may take different forms, require different
schools, teachers, and students. High-stakes types of performances, and be used for different
decisions should also take into account relevant purposes (formative or summative), but they are
and valid data on classroom-based performance, typically couched in an authentic or real-life
such as formative and summative assessments of scenario and require high-level thinking.
high quality that offer students a range of Performance-based assessments look like what we
opportunities to demonstrate their mathematical want students to do in the classroom (Fox, 2004)—
knowledge. Moreover, educational systems— states, and, as a result, can inform classroom practice in
districts, and schools—should be held accountable positive ways. Performance tasks allow teachers to
for providing essential support for high-quality engage students in real-world activities; they
mathematics teaching and learning before “emulate the context or conditions in which the
teachers and students are held accountable for intended knowledge or skills are actually applied”
assessment results" (NCTM, 2016, online). (American Educational Research Association [AERA],
American Psychological Association [APA], and
Summative assessment differs from those that that National Council on Measurement in Education
are formative or diagnostic nature because the [NCME], 1999, p. 137). They model “what is important
purpose of summative assessment is to determine to teach and … what is important to learn” (Lane,
the student’s overall achievement in a specific area 2013, p. 313).
of learning at a particular time (Harlen, 2005; Moss,
2013). While traditionally summative assessment has According to Zimmerman, Maker & Alfaiz (2020),
been associated with higher stakes testing, there is performance-based assessments in science,
a role for summative assessment in the classroom technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
when used as an additional constructive measure provide an alternative and complement to
demonstrating progress at a particular point of standardized achievement tests because they
time. Evaluating student learning at the end of a enable a holistic evaluation of the performance of
unit or chapter provides insight when used as a an individual student. Additionally, performance-
point of information to guide subsequent instruction based assessments have the potential to identify
(Black & Wiliam, 1998a & 1998b). and support exceptionally talented high school
students across all demographic groups, as they
Teachers can effectively use summative narrow disparities in scores among diverse cultural
assessments as another measure, another point in and economic groups and allow students to
time, and another means by which to best evaluate demonstrate their understanding of scientific
student understanding. As part of an integrated principles and their ability to develop solutions
assessment system, summative measures can also during hands-on activities. For these reasons of
help teachers shape instruction and differentiate to equity and accurate representation of individual
personalize learning. Summative assessments are students' knowledge and skills, performance-based
also useful as accountability measures for grading assessment appropriate for students from low SES
and gauging student learning against a set of levels are essential.
standards or expectations. Summative assessments
provide evaluative information to teachers about Assessment systems in high-performing nations
the effectiveness of their instructional program. “emphasize deep knowledge of core concepts
Research indicates that classroom summative within and across the disciplines, problem solving,
assessments also have the potential to positively collaboration, analysis, synthesis, and critical
impact learning (harlen, 2005; moss, 2013; nctm, thinking. As a large and increasing part of their
2016). examination systems, high-achieving nations use
open-ended performance tasks …to give students
Performance-based measures are also an opportunities to develop and demonstrate higher
important component within an effective order thinking skills…” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 3).
mathematics assessment system. Performance Research has established the benefits of
assessments connect to the important content and performance-based assessment. A review of
process skills emphasized in instruction and offer the classroom assessment practices in an age of high-
opportunity for students to show how well they can stakes testing led Schneider, Egan, and Julian (2013)
use what they know to classify, compare, analyze, to conclude that “the value of high-quality
performance tasks should not be diminished and
should be encouraged as an important tool” (p. 66).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 49

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math provides assessment measures and in students as they develop mathematics
tools to evaluate and track student achievement in proficiency. With digital and print working
mathematics. Current technology-enhanced item seamlessly together, in-depth, embedded
types are mirrored in digital assessments to equip assessment is presented with ease and
students with skills for high-stakes assessments. accountability. With the program's growth
Teachers can also customize all module and lesson measures, educators can track individual students'
assessments in both English and Spanish. Practice progress in meeting specific standards and
for each mathematics standard is also included in benchmarks, monitoring, tracing, and reporting
the assessment system. mathematical proficiency over time as it develops.

The HMH Into Math assessment system includes

continuous growth monitoring. Growth Reports are
available digitally on Ed and provide detailed
analysis of student performance. The Student
Growth Measure is an adaptive math assessment
that measures growth and longitudinal progress.
Features of the student growth measure include the
following:
 Assessments are administered three times
a year to efficiently pinpoint student
proficiency in ~40 minutes.
 Adaptive assessments adjust to each
student’s proficiency on the fly. No two
assessments are identical; items will be
closely matched to each student’s ability.
 Student scores are immediately available
in Quantile measures, which enables
monitoring of each student’s growth within
and across school years against grade-
level proficiency.
 Actionable reports visualize student
trajectory toward grade-level
expectations and eventually toward Both print and digital assessment options are
proficiency on the state assessments. available to meet schools’ needs. Print versions of
 Spanish audio available at Grades K–2. the digital assessments are available in the
Assessment Guide and on Ed. All digital
Within a school year and across school years, assessments offer auto-scoring, immediate access
growth monitoring ensures that students have the to student data, reports, and standards
skills to meet state standards and advance to correlations. Online item types include traditional
higher-level mathematical thinking. Data is multiple choice as well as technology-enhanced
displayed in a variety of representations and users item types similar to what students will encounter on
can drill down into data for thorough insights into high-stakes assessments.
performance.

The assessment options in HMH Into Math allow

teachers to monitor, predict, and accelerate growth

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 50

SUPPORTING DATA-DRIVEN DECISION
MAKING
Using diagnostic data to inform solutions is essential continually look for ways in which they can generate
to responsive, equitable approaches to teaching. evidence of student learning, and they use this
As NCTM (2020) calls for, ongoing effective evidence to adapt their instruction to better meet
formative assessment must undergird and support their students' learning needs" (Leahy et al., 2005, p.
learning interventions for individual students. A 23). Effective assessment tools allow teachers to
wealth of studies indicates that regular use of collect data about what is working—and what is not
assessment to monitor student progress can so that they can take precise, swift, and effective
mitigate and prevent mathematical weaknesses action to better serve students. "Assessment should
and improve student learning (Clarke & Shinn, 2004; not merely be
Fuchs, 2004, Lembke & Foegan, 2005). "One specific done to students; it should also be done for
finding is that providing teachers and students with students, to guide and enhance their learning
specific information on how each student is (NCTM, 2000, p. 22)
performing seems to enhance achievement
consistently...the effect of such practice is Data-driven instructional decision making is the
substantial" (Baker, et al., 2002, p. 67). systematic collection, analysis, and application of
many forms of data from multiple sources in order to
Effective teaching of mathematics establishes clear identify students' strengths and weaknesses
goals for the mathematics that students are regarding learning objectives and subsequently
learning, situates goals within learning progressions, address student learning needs and optimize
and uses the goals to guide instructional decisions performance in future instruction. Rigorous, ongoing
(NCTM, 2014). By addressing the goals within formative assessment that yields meaningful data is
mathematics learning progressions, teachers have a fundamental component with an effective data-
the opportunity to examine and monitor student driven decision-making system (Bambrick-Santoyo,
progress and needs in order to adjust instruction as 2014; Dunn, Airola, Lo, & Garrison, 2013; Marsh, Pane,
necessary (Sztajn, et al., 2012). & Hamilton, 2006).

Students’ progress on grade-appropriate tasks Research indicates that, when well-implemented,

must be continually monitored so that interventions data-driven instruction has the potential to
can be adjusted according to students' evolving dramatically improve student achievement
needs (Czupryk, 2020; Steiner & Weissberg, 2020). (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2014; Schifter, Natarajan,
“[T]eachers using assessment for learning Ketelhut, & Kirchgessner, 2014).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 51

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH

HMH Into Math integrates assessment with HMH Into Math empowers teachers with actionable
instruction and practice. HMH Into Math, Waggle, insights. Whether teachers need to differentiate at
and Growth Measure connect on Ed, the HMH the individual or small-group level, HMH Into Math
learning platform that offers SSO and accessibility with Waggle makes the right tools readily available.
from anywhere with an internet connection. The Waggle’s actionable data insights pinpoint precise
connected programs work together to provide skill gaps in real time, assessing students’
students and teachers with best-in-class core
knowledge without requiring a diagnostic or
programming, personalized supplemental practice
summative test.
and instruction, and a reliable benchmark
assessment. Results from Growth Measure directly
feed into Waggle, HMH’s adaptive supplemental
solution, to place students in relevant practice
based on domain and grade-level readiness.

Teachers receive alerts on the Waggle dashboard

to facilitate instruction with skills-based
differentiation in HMH Into Math’s program
structure and virtual and blended learning
environments. This interconnected approach to
assessment, core curricula, assessment,
supplemental support, and curated professional HMH Into Math provides valuable and reliable data
learning leverages assessment data to provide every step of the way. The teacher is enabled to
timely intervention and differentiation and optimizes focus time on how to differentiate to meet each
student’s need. Ongoing, varied assessments
teacher efforts.
contributes to the whole mathematical learning
picture of each student and is critical in uncovering
how to best support every student's growth.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 52

DIGITAL LEARNING
EXPERIENCE
Over the past decade, policies and practices regarding technology use in classrooms around the country have
shifted incrementally to widespread—and widely varying—application. Concurrent with such trends, there has
been an emergence of growing evidence attesting to the positive impacts of technology in education as well as
profound advances and innovations within the technology itself. No longer a question of whether technology can
improve learning, the issues became how to enable technology to deliver improved learning outcomes for all
students. Since the start of the 21st century, educators in United States have broadly adopted the understanding
that “[t]echnology can be a powerful tool for transforming learning. It can help affirm and advance relationships
between educators and students, reinvent our approaches to learning and collaboration, shrink long-standing
equity and accessibility gaps, and adapt learning experiences to meet the needs of all learners“ (U.S.
Department of Education, 2018, p. 3).

But when the global pandemic hit in 2020, digital learning suddenly, profoundly became—rather than a means of
improving education—a critical mission, the only way of providing instruction to students remotely. As Fisher, Fry,
and Hattie (2020) noted, teaching in 2020 wasn’t so much distance learning as crisis teaching. While the impacts
of COVID-19 will continue to present unprecedented challenges and uncertainties for schools in the years to
come, one point of clarity is that the future of education will rely in some part on technology—which requires that
educators have available to them resources that support effective digital and blended hybrid instruction.

HMH Into Math harnesses technology to provide interactive, adaptive, and personalized instruction along with
practice and assessment solutions addressing individual students' ongoing needs.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 53

BEST PRACTICES IN DIGITAL
MATHEMATICS LEARNING
The U.S. Department of Education (2019) stresses Within mathematics instruction specifically, tools
how technology plays a central role in STEM and technology are now indispensable. Essentials
education in terms of both its role within the STEM tools include manipulatives and counters and
professions today’s students are being trained for
as well as the potential technology has to calculators, which increasingly are being digitized
significantly improve both experiences and for classroom use and integrated with digital tools
outcomes for students as they learn STEM concepts such as tablets and whiteboards, offered within fully
and build STEM knowledge throughout their K-12 or partly digital curricular content. The technology is
educations. Per the USDOE, technology can continually evolving. But at a most basic level,
effectively be leveraged to support the following what's most critical is the functionality of the digital
critical components of effective mathematics tools and platform. "An excellent mathematics
instruction: program integrates the use of mathematical tools
 Dynamic representations: Students can more and technology as essential resources to help
effectively develop STEM concepts via students learn and make sense of mathematical
interactions with digital models, simulations, ideas, reason mathematically, and communicate
and dynamic representations of mathematical, their mathematical thinking" (NCTM, 2014, p. 78).
scientific, and engineering systems.
 Collaborative reasoning: Technology Before COVID-19 drove educators around the
platforms support students’ collaborative United States and the world to suddenly switch to
discussion and shared construction of STEM remote teaching in early 2020, the number of
concepts, fostering engagement and students receiving instruction in online and blended
equalizing participation among group learning environments had been steadily growing
members, as well as yielding higher (Gemin & Pape, 2017; Graham, Borup, Pulham, &
performance on test measures. Larsen, 2019). While the field of research is relatively
 Immediate and individualized feedback: new, findings that emerged over the past two
Digital tools provide students with prompt and decades indicate that digital learning has
customized feedback as they practice or enormous potential to positively transform
demonstrate their STEM skills that yield faster education for diverse groups of students
and improved learning outcomes. (Abdoolatiff & Narod, 2009; Patrick & Powell, 2009;
 Computational thinking: students can use USDOE, 2016 & 2010). Improvements in student-
technology to engage in formulation, analysis, centered, cooperative, and higher order learning as
and solving of problems using algorithms, data, well as problem solving and writing skills have been
and simulations to investigate questions and found within computer-intensive classroom settings
build new understandings about phenomena. (Ross, Morrison & Lowther, 2010). In 2016, U.S.
 Project-based interdisciplinary learning: both Department of Education reported that
process and product are enriched when technology-intensive instruction can make
students utilize technology tools in the context education more equitable by closing the digital use
of authentic project- or challenge-based divide and making transformative learning
learning activities that integrate multiple STEM opportunities available to all students.
fields. Technology can also be used effectively
to support task management. Blended learning utilizes both device-driven,
 Embedded assessments: assessments aligned technology-based instruction and face-to-face
to ongoing STEM instruction and delivered instruction in a conventional classroom context,
digitally provide opportunity for students to with the objective to maximize the advantages of
reflect on and demonstrate and for teachers to each. Research findings on the effects of blended
evaluate their learning. Technology can also learning are strikingly positive (Delgado, Wardlow,
foster peer reviews of student work. McKnight & O’Malley, 2015; Graham, Borup, Pulham,
 Evidence-based models: students use & Larsen, 2019; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003;
technology to reference or create models Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami & Schmid,
based on data and evidence. Digital models 2011). In a meta-analysis examining online and
also facilitate revisions and refinement over traditional face-to-face instruction with mixes of
time, yielding improved scientific models and both, blended instruction emerged as the most
accompanying understanding of concepts. effective of the three approaches (USDOE, 2010).
Likely because blended learning teaches students
through engaging media and modes that fit with

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 54

their daily practices and experiences, students tend critical adaptations within the digital environment
to view blended learning favorably (Uğur, Akkoyunlu, (Borup & Archambault, 2018). To achieve optimal
& Kurbanoğlu, 2011). Blended learning opportunities growth, blended learning should support teachers in
specifically expand the possibility of growth for all being flexible and responsive to students, to
students while affording historically disadvantaged integrate multiple data sources into their constant
students' greater equity of access to high-quality stream of formative assessment, and to deliberately
education, in the form of both enhanced, incorporate more rigorous learning activities
instructionally effective content and more (Anthony, 2019). In a large-scale study, Kwon,
personalized learning (Molnar, 2014). “[B]lended Debruler, & Kennedy (2019) found that for online
learning that combines digital instruction with live, learning to be successful, it is important that
accountable teachers holds unique promise to teaching is structured so that students make steady
improve student outcomes dramatically” (Public attempts to complete learning tasks, ideally with
Impact, 2013, p. 1). students’ own self-regulated learning scaffolded by
course pacing guides.
A well established body of evidence supports the
position that effective technology use in the Ultimately, it is the choice of task that matters in
classroom, through web-based and multimedia advancing learning—not the medium; teachers
learning, increases student engagement and should use technology as the means and starting
motivation (Abdoolatiff & Narod, 2009; Chen, point, not the core of teaching (Fisher, Fry, & Hattie,
Lambert, & Guidry, 2010; Mayer, 2013; Reinking, 2001; 2020). As Hattie's (2018, with Clarke) ongoing
Taylor & Parsons, 2011, Tucker, 2012). Game-based findings about best practices with technology
learning as well as simulations and virtual learning continue to affirm, instructional principles that
experiences have also widely shown positive effects transcend deliver format include: fostering student
on learning (Henderson, Klemes, & Eshet, 2000; self-regulation to help them move toward deeper
Merchant, Goetz, Cifuentes, Keeney-Kennicutt, learning; increase student agency; include a
Kwok & Davis, 2012). diversity of instructional approaches (not just some
direct instruction and then some off-line
However, research also suggests that the best independent work); include well-designed peer
practices in blended learning reflect the same from learning; provide feedback within a high-trust
those of traditional classrooms, but with some environment integrated into the learning cycle.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 55

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math provides a comprehensive, HMH Growth Measure can be used to track yearly
engaging interactive blended learning core progress and provide further personalized
program that is enhanced and extended by its pathways of skills-based instruction and practice.
digital features and multimedia experience. This valid and reliable student growth measure is
Additionally, the program accelerates growth, as administered digitally three times per year and
Waggle complements the Into Math lesson plan, designed to monitor student growth and determine
providing a digital option for online, skills-based grade-level expectations against Florida Statewide
differentiation in and out of the classroom. Students Assessments. All items align to Florida’s B.E.S.T.
and teachers benefit from Waggle's innovative Standards and detailed data reports are used
language supports for students who speak multiple guide instructional decisions and help provide
languages as well as its SEL framework and individualized learning opportunities.
embedded gaming.
HMH GoTM is an app that gives students the ability
In addition to offering customizable support at each to download their core digital resources for later
student's proficiency level, Waggle also promotes offline use.
engaged in math learning with exploration of age-
appropriate new worlds and missions. Students can
earn badges, points, and avatar customizations as
they complete assignments and demonstrate the
attributes of a Growth Mindset, from seeking
challenges to persevering through challenges.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 56

INCREASED AGENCY AND A MORE
PERSONALIZED APPROACH TO
MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION
“Digital learning has the capacity to transform environments should provide interactive
schools into new models for education that are instructional content that learners can view on a
student-centric, highly personalized for each personalized self-directed basis” (p. 160).
learner, and more productive, as it delivers
dramatically better results at the same or lower A blended learning approach specifically offers a
cost” (Horn & Staker, 2011, p. 2). Blended learning more consistent and personalized pedagogy helps
opportunities expand the possibility of growth for each child feel and be successful at school (Kwon et
all students in the form of enhanced, instructionally al., 2019). Digital learning tools can provide more
effective and engaging content as well as more flexibility and support for individual students by
personalized learning with preferred modalities; modifying content and complexity; additionally,
agency over the pace of their own learning; and advances in software technology have increased
more frequent and timely feedback—while adaptive learning and improved feedback. By
affording historically disadvantaged students providing a diverse array of online and other digital
additional benefits via greater equity of access to resources, technology supports learning drawn from
high-quality education (Horn & Staker, 2011; real-world challenges and students’ personal
Imbriale, 2013; Molnar, 2014; Public Impact, 2013; interests and passions while also aiding the
Tucker, 2012; USDOE, 2016). organization of a project-based curriculum (USDOE,
2016).
Digital programming offers an additional benefit of
increased automation, which can significantly Digital learning can also increase the capacity for
simplify educators’ lives by eliminating low-value students to work together. Computer-based
manual tasks such as attendance records and collaborative tools allow for online interactions that
student assessment data entry) as well as free up can create and strengthen a community of learners
educators' so that more of their time and energies while fostering students’ communication and
can be dedicated to small group, 1:1, or other collaboration skills (Tucker, 2012). “What makes
effective deliveries of direct instruction. The further blended learning particularly effective is its ability to
impact of allowing the platform to capture student facilitate a community of inquiry” (Garrison &
achievement data in real time is a freeing up of Kanuka, 2004, p. 97).
resources so that educators can “take advantage
of the things that leading brick-and-mortar schools Research shows that effective technology use in the
do well, such as creating a strong, supportive classroom motivates students to take charge of
culture that promotes rigor and high expectations their own learning and that digital learning itself is
for all students, as well as providing healthy, enhanced when students are given more control
supportive relationships and mentorship.” (Horn & over their interaction with media (Horn & Staker,
Staker, 2011, p. 7) 2011; Patrick & Powell, 2009; USDOE, 2010).
Technology is increasingly being utilized in the
Other researchers have indicated that multimedia United States to personalize learning and give
learning leads to increased student motivation students more choice over what and how they
because of the responsiveness and student control learn, and at what pace; this will better prepare
these environments allow and the subsequent students to organize and direct their learning in
engagement in active learning (Schunk, Pintrich, & their lives even after formal schooling (USDOE, 2016).
Meece, 2008; Sims, Dobbs & Hand, 2002). Zhang “Online learning has the potential to transform
(2005) found students in a full interactive teaching and learning by redesigning traditional
multimedia-based e-learning environment classroom instructional approaches, personalizing
achieved better performance and higher levels of instruction, and enhancing the quality of learning
satisfaction than those in a traditional classroom experiences. The preliminary research shows
and those in a less interactive e-learning promise for online learning as an effective
environment, with a lack of control over content alternative for improving student performance
diminishing potential benefits. “This study implies across diverse groups of students (Patrick & Powell,
that to create effective learning, e-learning 2009, p. 9).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 57

HOWHMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH Into Math in conjunction with Waggle goes HMH Into Math reports support growth and offer
beyond adaptive learning to truly personalize the following features:
practice and instruction to support students at all  Real-time data, reports, and analytics will be
proficiency levels. Keeping students engaged in provided for digital assessments, investing in
their Zones of Proximal Development is key to the teacher to
creating growth. Waggle uses 13 different data increase his/her efficiency to focus on the
points to personalize learning for every single students’ needs based on the needs identified.
student.  Many reports will be available for teachers to
monitor student outcomes and intervene or
A robust digital platform makes assessment and challenge students more effectively.
monitoring reports customizable and accessible for  Reports will be provided at the student, class,
teachers and students. and school levels. Some common reports are
highlighted.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 58

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
To support the delivery of effective instruction, HMH Into Math features research-based approaches to
professional learning that support teachers in becoming developers of high-impact learning experiences for their
students. Comprehensive professional learning solutions are data and evidence driven, mapped to instructional
goals, and centered on students—and they build educators’ collective capacity. HMH allows teachers to achieve
agency in their professional growth through effective instructional strategies, embedded teacher support, and
ongoing professional learning relevant to everyday teaching.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 59

CONTINUUM OF CONNECTED
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
Effective professional learning, whether in-person, has traditionally been available. If we want all
online, or blended, takes place as a “series of young people to possess the higher-order thinking
connected, coordinated components on a skills they need to succeed in the 21st century, we
continuum” (Rock, 2019). This continuum includes need educators who possess higher-order teaching
alignment between the study of theory and skills and deep content knowledge. (Gov. James B.
practice, observation of theory and practice, Hunt, Jr. in Wei et al.’s Professional Learning in the
individual coaching, and further practice and Learning Profession: Status Report, 2009, p. 2)
refinement through collaboration. Each of these
components is essential to support and build on the Current reform efforts across disciplines require
content and pedagogy that is learned, observed, significant shifts in teachers’ roles from traditional,
and practiced in each of the other components. rote, fact-based approaches to fostering students’
Long-term connected professional learning includes deeper engagement, critical thinking, and problem
cohesive features—online coaching, remote peer solving. For schools to support these standards and
observations, online collaboration, and facilitated instructional practices, effective professional
online communities—all with a focus on how to learning during the implementation stage, when
ensure social and emotional well-being and teachers are learning and committing to an
meaningful student learning in digital environments. instructional approach, is critical (Gulamhussein,
Connecting workshops to follow up learning and 2013). While technology transforms the teacher’s
support among peers and with coaches can help role, this does not mean that evidence-based
teachers retain new knowledge, practice new skills, teaching practices should be discarded. In fact,
and share innovative effective approaches. A effective instruction results when teachers
connection between workshops, coaching, and purposefully combine these tools with proven
collaboration is essential for professional learning to instructional approaches (Kieschnick, 2017).
make a difference in student achievement (Aguilar,
2019). Teachers’ initial exposure to a concept should
engage them through varied approaches and
Research increasingly finds that teachers’ active learning strategies to make sense of the new
professional learning is essential to school reform practice (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2014;
and a vital link between standards movements and Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001;
student achievement (Borman & Feger, 2006; Garet Gulamhussein, 2013). An effective professional
et al., 2001; Gulamhussein 2013; Sweeney 2011; Wei, learning program should focus on the targeted
Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & content, strategies, and practices (Bill & Melinda
Orphanos, 2009; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Gates Foundation; 2014; Saxe, Gearhart, & Nasir
Shapley, 2007). According to Wei et al. (2009): 2001; Wei, 2009) and be grounded in the teacher’s
As students are expected to learn more complex grade level or discipline (Gulamhussein, 2013).
and analytical skills in preparation for further
education and work in the 21st century, teachers Research has documented that educational
must learn to teach in ways that develop higher reforms are not self-implementing or predictable in
order thinking and performance. . . . Efforts to terms of how they may (or may not) take hold at the
improve student achievement can succeed only classroom level; the vital link necessary for targeted
by building the capacity of teachers to improve change is local professional learning by teachers
their instructional practice and the capacity of (Borman & Feger, 2006). Effective professional
school systems to advance teacher learning (p. learning is embedded and ongoing as part of a
1). wider reform effort, rather than an isolated activity
or initiative (Garet et al., 2001; Wei et al., 2009). “The
Enabling educational systems to achieve on a wide duration of professional development must be
scale the kind of teaching that has a substantial significant and ongoing to allow time for teachers
impact on student learning requires much more to learn a new strategy and grapple with the
intensive and effective professional learning than implementation problem” (Gulamhussein, 2013, p. 3).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 60

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
Educators have access to sustained professional What types of resources are included?
development support for HMH Into Math. Your  Teacher Success Pathways are
subscription includes continuous implementation personalized to match the programs and
support all year long. To ensure teachers are grades they are teaching and include
successful and confident with their new HMH topics that address different elements of
program from the onset, we provide a system of teaching such as planning and prioritizing
support designed to concentrate on what's most instruction, assessing and differentiating,
important for teacher’s first 30 days, which includes and personalizing instruction.
district-scheduled program trainings and Teacher  Yearlong access to Teacher's Corner™ puts
Success Pathways on Ed, the HMH Learning Platform. real-world classroom videos and best
practices at your fingertips on your
Benefits: schedule. Plus, free Live Events allow you to
 Live and on-demand, solution-specific build a community around solutions to
teaching resources available on their today's instructional challenges.
schedule
 Teachers have multiple opportunities to
attend the sessions in their pathway and
unlimited access to their resource materials
throughout the year, no matter when in the
year they are hired.
 Printable parent and caregiver letters in
English and Spanish to help with at-home
support and more!

Ongoing professional learning and support for HMH

Into Math isn't limited to teachers—Leaders can also
view on-demand resources such as classroom
videos and live events via Leader's Corner.

Leader's Corner Resources Support:

 Live Events
 Getting Started
 Program Support
 Breakroom

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 61

JOB-EMBEDDED COACHING TO
STRENGTHEN TEACHING AND LEARNING
Research has demonstrated that sustained, job- teachers to learn from each other through
embedded coaching is the most effective form of observation, imitation, and modeling. ISTE
professional learning, whether it is delivered in recommends that school districts chose a coaching
person or in a virtual setting. Coaching delivered in model that best fits the needs of their teachers,
person has been most effective when coaches are whether it is cognitive coaching, instructional
highly experienced and focus their work with coaching, or peer coaching (Beglau, Hare, Foltos,
teachers on a clearly specified instructional model Gann, James, Jobe, Knight, & Smith, 2011). Effective
or program. Other opportunities for teachers to professional learning programs provide continued
develop their content knowledge of the targeted follow-up and support from coaches (Sweeney,
instructional model (e.g., in courses, workshops, or 2011). Knight (2011) stresses that once training
coach-led learning groups) are also an important initiatives are kick-started to raise awareness of
component of successful coaching programs. targeted teaching practices, follow-up and
Online coaching shows promise for being at least as coaching are essential: “[l]asting change does not
effective as in-person coaching for improving occur without focus, support, and systemwide
outcomes, though the research base comparing accountability. . . . Support is necessary for
delivery systems is thin. The balance of evidence to transferring talk into action” (p. 10).
date, however, suggests that the medium through
which coaching is delivered is less important than Instructional coaching entailing the modeling of
the quality and substance of the learning specific sought-after practices has been shown to
opportunities provided to teachers (Matsumura, help teachers embrace and implement best
Correnti, Walsh, DiPrima Bickel, & Zook-Howell, practices and educational policy (Coburn & Woulfin,
2019). 2012; Gulamhussein, 2013; Heineke & Polnick, 2013;
Knight, 2011; Taylor & Chanter, 2016; Wei et al.,
A recent meta-analysis of coaching programs 2009).
found effect sizes of 0.49 SD on instructional
practices and 0.18 SD on student achievement Effective modeling of targeted instructional
(Kraft, Blazar, & Hogan, 2018). Encouragingly, practices is purposeful and deliberate, incorporates
teachers who received virtual coaching performed academic language, and is based on research
similarly to teachers who received in-person (Taylor & Chanter, 2016). Gulamhussein (2013)
coaching for improving both instructional practices reports that:
and student achievement. The authors identified While many forms of active learning help teachers
several aspects of coaching in a virtual setting as decipher concepts, theories, and research-based
potential strengths: increasing the number of practices in teaching, modeling—when an expert
teachers with whom a high-quality coach can work, demonstrates the new practice—has been shown
reducing educators’ concern about being to be particularly successful in helping teachers
evaluated by their coach, and lowering costs while understand and apply a concept and remain
increasing scalability (Kraft et al., 2018). open to adopting it (p. 17).

The International Society for Technology in According to a large-scale survey commissioned by

Education (ISTE) embraces a professional the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2014), teachers
development model that includes effective seek more opportunities to be coached in learning
coaching, collaborative communities, and a effective new instructional strategies and practices,
technology-rich environment. Effective coaching is believing these professional learning efforts are
contextual, relevant, and ongoing. Collaborative more valuable. “Like athletes, teachers will put
communities can be school-based or online newly learned skills to use—if they are coached”
professional learning communities that allow (Joyce & Showers, 1982, p. 5).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 62

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
Instructional coaching, which includes lesson An HMH coach and teacher(s) will
modeling, deepens your implementation and  Analyze student work to Set student
ensures sustainable, data-driven results. learning targets and next steps.
 Learn New Instructional Skills - Access best
Online and blended coaching powered by HMH practice classroom videos and resources
Coaching Studio combines personalized aligned to the goals they have set,
professional learning with an interactive discussing these skills with their HMH coach
collaboration platform. Coaching provides teachers and peers.
with the support they need to positively impact  Apply Learning in the Classroom -
students every day. By powering our coaching Collaboration with an HMH Coach is easy-
services with Coaching Studio, a fully integrated teacher(s) and coaches can upload videos,
and interactive virtual space, coaches, teachers, images, and documents aligned to their
and other stakeholders can share resources, work with students.
engage in meaningful discussions, and reflect on
 Review Progress & Reflect on Results -
their learning at any time, in one centralized
Video-based self or collaborative
location. Through the HMH Coaching Studio
reflection. Teachers and coaches can
platform, teachers set and track progress on their
share feedback, make notes, tag key
learning goals, stay connected to their HMH coach
strategies, connect thoughts to helpful
and peers between live and online coaching
resources, and align artifacts to HMH
sessions, upload their own resources, and have
Implementation Frameworks.
access to a library of on-demand lesson-modeling
videos and resources for "anytime" learning. The
HMH Coaching Studio can be accessed via
computer and mobile.

The Coaching Studio supports continuing

collaboration and on-demand learning. Teachers
have access to a private coaching space as well as
a library of on-demand videos that model lessons.
The platform makes it easy for teachers and
coaches to stay connected, share resources, and
upload and reflect on classroom videos, and make
continuing progress on learning goals. Coaching
Studio aligns to the HMH Coaching Model. Teachers
can easily share artifacts with their coach and
peers via the mobile app or the website

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 63

PERSONALIZED & ACTIONABLE
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
Personalized professional development allows the form of professional learning communities can
teachers to pursue learning to support their be a powerful motivator for school improvement
instructional needs in their own place and at their (Coburn, 2005).
own pace. Teachers can take courses via online
professional learning portals, opportunities offered As Bryk and colleagues (2015) noted in a study of
by the school, or off-campus settings. In this improvement efforts that included professional
process, teachers learn new competencies, learning, positive changes happen in the presence
demonstrate what they have learned in their of teachers’ “good will and engagement,” which is
classrooms, and submit evidence of mastery. As often rooted in teachers having choice and
teachers build their knowledge and skills, they earn autonomy in their own learning. These qualities are
badges to demonstrate their expertise (Clayton, essential whether teachers meet for large-group
Elliott, & Iwata, 2014). professional learning, attend professional learning
communities within their schools, or work on their
Many school districts and providers of teachers’ own to search out experts to guide them through
professional development are moving toward a self-study with print or online resources.
more personalized model of professional
development, taking a cue from the movement Teachers who seek to improve their practice and
toward personalized learning for students. This their students’ achievement can also turn to
approach often focuses on short modules, which resources to help them continue successfully on
teachers can choose and then complete on their their path toward professional mastery and control
own time. The modules can incorporate aspects of the place, pace, and path of their professional
gamification, micro-credentialing, and online learning. Individually and collaboratively, they
professional development communities. By allowing engage in a process sometimes called “self-
teachers to choose their own professional coaching” (Wood et al., 2014). There are five steps
development courses and activities, the to self-coaching that align with high-quality
professional development will be better matched to teaching:
their needs. Teachers will be able to set goals, find 1. Collecting data to help answer questions about
resources to help them meet those goals, track their instructional improvement. Formative and
progress, and get feedback from supervisors and benchmark data are important, but so is
colleagues (Gamrat, Zimmerman, Dudek, & Peck, information about students’ interests, styles of
2014; Meeuwse & Mason, 2017). learning, and work habits.
2. Reflecting on the data as a whole and on the
Effective training efforts should be developed data that results from looking back on each day’s
according to evidence-based strategies for adult instruction, and each week’s instruction.
learning and communication, including engaging 3. Acting on the reflections, trying things out, and
teachers in varied approaches that allow for their sharing the results of teachers’ actions in a
active participation (Bill & Melinda Gates collaborative and mutually supportive group.
Foundation, 2014; Garet et al., 2001; Gulamhussein, 4. Evaluating one’s practice, especially through
2013; Guskey, 2002; Taylor & Chanter, 2016). As video self-reflection, asking questions about
intellectuals, they are empowered to reflect on effectiveness of instruction and students’ receptivity
theory, research, and their practice to innovate and to the instruction.
implement new teaching strategies and 5. Extending one’s actions, for example, taking a
approaches. This process of reflection can lead to successful approach to teaching students to
teachers’ turning to their colleagues for advice and understand complex narrative texts to instruction
clarification—a process sometimes called “collective on reading, social studies, science, or other
sensemaking,” which research has shown that in informational texts.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 64

HOW HMH INTO MATH ALIGNS TO RESEARCH
HMH offers online and on-demand resources that HMH’s Live Online Course modules allow you to
support and enhance the teaching and learning design flexible and ongoing professional learning
journey. As a partner (Professional Learning Partner courses aligned to your instructional initiatives. A
Guide), HMH has demonstrated that we understand Live Online Course consists of six, 1-hour modules for
students’ diverse needs and have the right up to 35 participants that can be delivered over
professional learning tools to support educators’ time and an additional one-hour consultative
ever-changing needs. We deliver ongoing planning session.
professional learning on topics that matter to you
and your students. Courses provide both course-specific and agnostic
topics, including:
 SEL
 Cultural Responsiveness
 Remote teaching and learning
 Teaching Children to read
 Math Discourse
 And many more...

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 65

APPENDIX
A NOTE ON THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Educators in the 21st century face daunting challenges. Such challenges were exacerbated in 2020-21 as COVID-
19 necessitated near universal school closures and instruction at every level was disrupted. Further, the global
pandemic exposed and amplified pervasive inequities impacting historically marginalized groups, including
children from low-income backgrounds, children of color, multilingual learners, and children with disabilities. The
nation's most vulnerable students—those suffering within education policies and infrastructures that systemically
underserve them have been—were disproportionately adversely affected by the academic, economic, and public
health tolls COVID-19 (Ed Trust, 2020; Garcia & Weiss, 2020; Terada, 2020). As schools resume in-person
instruction and remedy the interrupted learning, the importance of meeting the needs of all students has perhaps
never been more urgent.

Guidance on how to best serve students through continued uncertain times is available in established and new
research. Mathematics is an area of particular concern. Initial examinations into the of COVID-19 on K-12
education show significant learning loss in mathematics, especially for disadvantage students (Kuhfeld,
Tarasawa, Johnson, Ruzek & Lewis, 2020). This was not surprising given that math learning successively builds on
conceptual understandings and foundational skills—but this mean that math must be an area of prioritized focus,
with efforts aimed at making up for grounds and gains lost and identifying and prioritizing what is most vitally
taught at specific grade levels (Council of the Great City Schools, 2020). It will be critical that districts expand
investments that support effective mathematics instruction in order to help students recover from widespread
disruptions. Specifically, districts must consider the extent to which organizational structures establish and
maintain high expectations for all students, while allowing for the customization of learning concepts based on
data (Tarasawa & Samuel, 2021).

A wide range of approaches to curricula and supplemental programming exist to boost academic achievement.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution and, on macro- and micro-levels schools continually have to make based on
the needs of students and communities they serve as well as the resources they have available—and the short-
and long-term impacts of COVID-19 related school closures will undoubtedly such challenges all the more
daunting. Specifically, districts must consider the extent to which organizational structures establish and
maintain high expectations for all students, while allowing for the customization of learning concepts based on
data (Tarasawa & Samuel, 2021).

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 66

 WORKS CITED
Abassian, A., Safi, F., Bush, S., & Bostic, J. (2020). Five different perspectives on mathematical modeling in mathematics education. Investigations
in Mathematics Learning, 12(1), 53-65.

Abdoolatiff, S., & Narod, F. B. (2009). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations in the teaching of “atomic structure and bonding.”
Chemistry Education in the ICT Age, 85-100.

Achieve. (2010). Comparing the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics and NCTM’s Curriculum Focal Points. Washington, DC: Author.

Aguilar, E. (2019). You can’t have a coaching culture without a structure. Educational Leadership: A Culture of Coaching, 77(3), 22–28.

Aguirre, J. M., Mayfield-Ingram, K., & Martin, D. B. (2013). Partnering with Families and Communities to Support Children’s Equitable Mathematics
Learning. In The Impact of Identity in K-8 Mathematics Learning and Teaching: Rethinking Equity-Based Practices. The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.

Alberti, S. (2012). Making the shifts. Educational leadership, 70(4), 24-27.

Almarode, J. & Vardas, K. (2018). Clarity for Learning: Five Essential Practices that Empower Students and Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin-
Sage Publications.

American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education
[NCME]. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Anthony, E. (2019). (Blended) Learning: How traditional best teaching practices impact blended elementary classrooms. Journal of Online Learning
Research, 5(1), 25-48.

Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College
Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 2.

Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215–241.

Asturias Méndez, L. H. (2015). Access for All: Linking Learning and Language. English Learner Leadership Conference presentation, Sacramento
County Office of Education. Retrieved online: https://www.scoe.org/files/el15-asturias.pdf

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary
School Journal, 103(1), 51-73.

Bambrick-Santoyo P. (2014). Make Students College-Ready in High School. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(5), 72-73.

Baroody, A.J. (2006). Why children have difficulties mastering the basic number combinations and how to help them. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 13(1), 22–32.

Baroody, A. J., Bajwa, N. P., & Eiland, M. (2009). Why can't Johnny remember the basic facts?. Developmental disabilities research reviews, 15(1),
69-79.

Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2005). Writing in mathematics: an alternative form of communication for academically low-achieving
students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 119-135.

Beane, J. A (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Beglau, M., Hare, J. C., Foltos, L, Gann, K., James, J., Jobe, H., Knight, J., & Smith, B. (2011). Technology, coaching, and community: Power partners
for improved professional development in primary and secondary education (White Paper). International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE). https://www.ri-iste.org/Resources/Documents/Coaching_Whitepaper_digital.pdf

Berry, W. (2018). Thinking about instructional routines in teaching and learning mathematics. NCTM Messages from the President. Retrieved online:
https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-the-President/Archive/Robert-Q_-Berry-III/Thinking-about-Instructional-
Routines-in-Mathematics-Teaching-and-Learning

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2014). Teachers know best: Teachers’ views on professional development. Seattle, WA: Author.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003, April). A successful intervention—Why did it work. In American Educational Research
Association annual meeting, Chicago.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7–73.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A
longitudinal study and an intervention. Child development, 78(1), 246-263.

Blatto-Vallee, G. Kelly, R. Gaustad, M. Porter, J. & Fonzi, J. (2007). Visual spatial representation in mathematical problem solving by deaf and
hearing students. Journal of Deaf Students and Deaf Education, 12(4), 432-48.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 67

Bobis, J. & Way, J. (2018). Building connections between children’s representations and their conceptual development in mathematics. In Kinnear
V., Lai M., Muir T. (Eds) Forging Connections in Early Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Early Mathematics Learning and
Development. Springer, Singapore.

Bond, J. B., & Ellis, A. K. (2013). The effects of metacognitive reflective assessment on fifth and sixth graders’ mathematics achievement. School
Science and Mathematics, 113(5), 227–234.

Borman, J., & S. Feger. (2006). Instructional coaching: Key themes from the literature. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.

Borup, J., & Archambault, L. (2018). K-12 blended and online competencies, standards, retention, and attitudes. Journal of Online Learning
Research, 4(1), 1-3.

Boston, M. D., & Wilhelm, A. G. (2015). Middle school mathematics instruction in instructionally focused urban districts. Urban Education, 52(7), 829-
861.

Bouck, E. C., & Park, J. (2018). A systematic review of the literature on mathematics manipulatives to support students with disabilities. Education
and Treatment of Children, 41(1), 65-106.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Research Council.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Bray, W. S. (2013). How to leverage the potential of mathematical errors. Teaching children mathematics, 19(7), 424-431.

Bray, W.S., Dixon, J.K., & Martinez, M. (2006). Fostering communication about measuring area in a transitional language class. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 13(3), 132–138.

Bryk, A., Gomez, L. M., Grunnow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Burns, M. (2004). Writing in math. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 30-33.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.

Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Franke, M.L., Levi, L., & Empson, S.B. (2015). Children’s mathematics. Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Carpenter, T.P., Franke, M.L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary schools. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Chamberlin, M. T. (2005). Teachers’ discussions of students’ thinking: Meeting the challenge of attending to students’ thinking. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education 8(2), 141–70.

Chamberlin, M.T., & Powers, R.A. (2010). The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the mathematical understandings of college
students. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, 29(3),
113–139.

Chapin, S.H., O’Connor, C., & Canavan Anderson, N. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using Math Talk to help students learn, Grades 1-6. Sausalito,
CA: Math Solutions Publication.

Charles, R.I. (2005). Big ideas and understandings as the foundation for elementary and middle school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics
Education Leadership, 7(3), 9–24.

Chen, P., A. Lambert & K. Guidry. (2009). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning engagement on college student
engagement. Computers & Education, 54, 1222-1232.

Childs, K. J., & Glenn-White, V. (2018). Posing purposeful questions through making sense of mathematical tasks. SRATE Journal, 27(2), 11-17.

Clarke, B., & Shinn, M.R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based
measurement. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 234-248.

Clarke, S., Timperley, H., & Hattie, J. (2004). Unlocking Formative Assessment: Practical Strategies for Enhancing Students’ Learning in the Primary
and Intermediate Classroom. Auckland, New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.

Clayton, J., Elliott, R., & Iwata, J. (2014). Exploring the use of micro-credentialing and digital badges in learning environments to encourage
motivation to learn and achieve. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S.K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and reality: Critical perspectives on educational
technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 703–707).

Clements, D. H. (2000). ‘Concrete’ manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary issues in early childhood, 1(1), 45-60.

Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.

Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the “Building Blocks” project. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2020). Learning and teaching early math (3rd edition). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 68

Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at
scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6-33.

Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills
in the 21st Century. J. Pellegrino & M. Hilton (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Council of the Great City Schools. (2020). Addressing Unfinished Learning After COVID-19 School Closures.
https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/313/CGCS_Unfinished%20Learning.pdf

Cross, C.T., Woods, T.A., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Center
for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E.P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
15(4), 375–402.

Czerniak, C.M., Weber, W.B., Jr., Sandmann, A., & Ahem, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics integration. School Science &
Mathematics, 99(8), 421–430.

Czupryk, B. (2020, April 30). Remediation won't help students catch up. Here's what will. TNTP Blog. https://tntp.org/blog/post/remediation-
wont-help-students-catch-up-heres-what-will.

Dacey, L., Lynch, J. B., & Salemi, R. E. (2013). How to differentiate your math instruction: lessons, ideas, and videos with common core support: a
multimedia professional learning resource. Math Solutions.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Performance counts: Assessment systems that support high-quality learning. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State
School Officers.

David, J. & Greene, D. (2007). Improving Mathematics Instruction in Los Angeles High Schools: An Evaluation of the PRISMA Pilot Program. Palo Alto,
Calif.: Bay Area Research Group.

Delgado, A., L., Wardlow, K. McKnight, & K. O’Malley. (2015). Educational technology: A review of the integration, resources, and effectiveness of
technology in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 14, 397-4.

Desoete, A., & De Craene, B. (2019). Metacognition and mathematics education: An overview. ZDM, 51(4), 565-575.

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Retrieved August 2002, from
http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/dewey.html. [Originally published in 1916].

Dixon, J. (2018). Just-in-time vs. just-in-case scaffolding: How to foster productive perseverance. Retrieved online:
https://www.hmhco.com/blog/just-in-time-vs-just-in-case-scaffolding-how-to-foster-productive-perseverance

Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. (2005). How students learn. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Dunn, K. E., Airola, D. T., Lo, W. J., & Garrison, M. (2013). Becoming data driven: The influence of teachers’ sense of efficacy on concerns related to
data-driven decision making. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(2), 222-241.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.

Dweck, C. (2008). Mindsets and Math/Science Achievement. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York Institute for Advanced Study.

Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth mindset. Education Week, 35(5), 20-24.

Dyer, E. B., & Sherin, M. G. (2016). Instructional reasoning about interpretations of student thinking that supports responsive teaching in secondary
mathematics. ZDM, 48(1), 69-82.

Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In Handbook of child psychology: Volume 3 – Social, emotional, and
personality development (5th ed.). N. Eisenberg (Ed.). NY, NY: Wiley.

Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching Adolescents to Become
Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance--A Critical Literature Review. Chicago, IL: Consortium on
Chicago School Research.

Feldman, K., & Kinsella, K. (2005). Narrowing the language gap: The case for explicit vocabulary instruction. NY, NY: Scholastic.

Fisher, D., Frey, N. & Hattie, J. (2020). The distance learning playbook, grades K-12: Teaching for engagement and impact in any setting. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or opportunity gap?. The High School Journal, 91(1), 29-42.

Fonger, N., Stephens, A. Blanton, M., Isler, I. Knuth, E. & Murphy Gardiner, A. (2018). Developing a learning progression for curriculum, instruction, and
student learning: An example from mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 36(1), 30-55.

Fosnot, C.T., & Dolk, M. (2001). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing multiplication and division. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fosnot, C.T., & Jacob, W. (2010). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing algebra. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fox, J. (2004). Test decisions over time: Tracking validity. Language Testing, 21, 437–465.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 69

Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2005). Conditions for promoting reasoning in problem solving: Insights from a longitudinal study. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 24(3-4), 361-372.

Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. S. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practices. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), The second handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Fuchs, L.S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly,41(1), 93–99.

Fuson, K.C. (1986). Roles of representation and verbalization in the teaching of multidigit addition and subtraction. European Journal of
Psychology in Education, 4, 35–56.

Fuson, K.C. (2009). Avoiding misinterpretations of Piaget and Vygotsky: Mathematical teaching without learning, learning without teaching, or
helpful learning-path teaching? Cognitive Development, 24(4), 343–361.

Fuson, K.C., Kalchman, M., & Bransford, J.D. (2005). Mathematical understanding: An introduction. In M.S. Donovan & J.D. Bransford (Eds.), How
students learn: History, math, and science in the classroom (pp. 217-256). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Fuson, K.C. & Murata, A. (2007). Integrating NRC principles and the NCTM Process Standards to form a Class Learning Path Model that
individualizes within whole-class activities. National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership,
10(1), 72–91.

Gaddy, A.K., Harmon, S.E., Barlow, A.T., Milligan, C.D., & Huang, R. (2014). Implementing the Common Core: Applying shifts to instruction.
Mathematics Teacher, 108(2), 108–113.

García, E., & Weiss, E. (2020). COVID-19 and Student Performance, Equity, and US Education Policy: Lessons from Pre-Pandemic Research to
Inform Relief, Recovery, and Rebuilding. Economic Policy Institute.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample
of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915

Garrison, D. & H. Kanuka. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,
7(2), 95-105.

Gemin, B., & Pape, L. (2017). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning, 2016. Evergreen Education Group.

Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J.R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response
to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools. Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved online: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/rti_math_ pg_042109.pdf.

Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (2001). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. LD OnLine. Retrieved
online: http:// www.ldonline.org/article/5838/.

Gersten, R., Clarke, B., & Mazzocco, M. M. (2007). Historical and contemporary perspectives on mathematical learning disabilities. Instruction
Research Brief. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Goffney, I. (2018). Where do we go from here? Next steps in rehumanizing mathematics for Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students. In R. Gutiérrez, I.
Goffney, & M. Boston (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics. education 2018: Rehumanizing mathematics for Black, Indigenous, and
Latinx students (pp. 159–170). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Goldenberg, E., Mark, J., Kang, J., Fries, M., Carter, C., & Cordner, T. (2015). Making sense of algebra: Developing students’ mathematical habits of
mind. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Graham, C. R., Borup, J., Pulham, E., & Larsen, R. (2019). K–12 Blended teaching readiness: Model and instrument development. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 51(3), 239-258.

Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179-226.

Granovskiy, B. (2018). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: An Overview. CRS Report R45223, Version 4.
Updated. Congressional Research Service.

Grapin, S. (2019). Multimodality in the new content standards era: Implications for English learners. Tesol Quarterly, 53(1), 30-55.

Gulamhussein, A. (2013). Teaching the teachers: Effective professional development in an era of high stakes accountability. Alexandria, VA: Center
for Public Education.

Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating Students to Read: Evidence for Classroom Practices that Increase Reading Motivation and
Achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329–354). Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.

Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 44, (1), 37–68.

Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning—tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207–223.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Constrained person analogy in young children’s biological inference. Cognitive Development, 6(2), 219–231.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 70

Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of science,
mathematics and ICT education, 6(1), 51-72.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta- analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2018). Visible Learning: Feedback. Routledge.

Hattie, J., Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2017). Visible Learning for Mathematics: What Works Best to Optimize Student Learning, Grades K-12. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Mathematics.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

Haystead, M. & Marzano, R. (2009). Meta-analytic synthesis of studies conducted at Marzano Research Laboratory on instructional
strategies. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Heineke, S., & B. Polnick. (2013). Pave the way for coaches. Journal of Staff Development, 34(3), 48–51.

Henderson, L., J. Klemes & Y. Eshet. (2000). Just playing a game? Educational simulation software and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 22(1), 105-129.

Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145.

Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. The Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved
online: http://169.62.82.226/documents/mde/CCSSO_Learning_Progressions_Mararget_Heritage_1_601110_7.pdf

Hibbard, M. (1996). A teacher’s guide to performance-based learning and assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 3–19.

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in
curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.

Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D.A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. Second handbook of research on the
teaching and learning of mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 371–404.

Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of teacher education, 58(1), 47-61.

Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American educational
research journal, 30(2), 393-425.

Hill, M. Sharma, M. O’Byrne, J. & Airey, J. (2014). Developing and evaluating a survey for representational fluency in science. International Journal of
Innovation in Mathematics and Science Education, 22(6). Retrieved online:
https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/view/7484

Horn, M. & H. Staker. (2011). The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning. Lexington, MA: Innosight Institute.

Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K.C., & Sherin, M.G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a Math-Talk Learning Community. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81–116.

Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2015). Describing levels and components of a Math-Talk Learning Community. In E. A. Silver & P. A.
Kenney (Eds.), More lessons learned from research: Volume 1: Useful and usable research related to core mathematical practices, (pp. 125-
134). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Jackson, R. R., & Lambert, C. (2010). How to Support Struggling Students. Mastering the Principles of Great Teaching series. ASCD. 1703 North
Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714.

Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Roberts, T., Yost, C., & Fowler, A. (2021). Equity-oriented conceptual framework for K-12
STEM literacy. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-16.

Jacobs, V. & Ambrose, R. (2008). Making the most of story problems. Teaching children mathematics, 15(5), 260-266.

Jacobs, V., Lamb, L. & Philipp, R. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
41(2),169–202.

Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. review of Educational research, 78(4), 1010-1038.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4–8.

Kalbfleisch, M. L., & Tomlinson, C. A. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain a call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52-55.

Kang, H., Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., D Simpkins, S., Rhee, H. Y., & Turner, C. (2019). How do middle school girls of color develop STEM identities?
Middle school girls’ participation in science activities and identification with STEM careers. Science Education, 103(2), 418-439.

Kanold, T. (2018). Mathematics RTI: A high quality response when students don’t learn! HMH Driving Student Outcomes with Intentional Instruction
Summit.

Kaplinsky, R. (2018). Mathematical modeling: Do you need better spies or analysts? Retrieved online: https://robertkaplinsky.com/mathematical-
modeling-need-better-spies-analysts/.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 71

Kaplinsky, R. (2019). Getting to the heart of what students know in math. Edutopia. Retrieved online: https://www.edutopia.org/article/getting-
heart-what-students-know-math.

Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523–550.

Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive science, 38(5), 1008-1022.

Kelemanik, G., Lucenta, A. & Creighton, S. (2016). Routines for Reasoning: Fostering the Mathematical Practices in All Students. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., & Yovanoff, P. (2009). Diagnostic assessments in mathematics to support instructional decision making. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(16), 1–1.

Kieschnick, W. (2017). Bold school: Old school wisdom + new school technologies. Highbridge Audio.

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
30(4), 28–37.

Kisker, E. E., Lipka, J., Adams, B. L., Rickard, A., Andrew-Ihrke, D., Yanez, E. E., & Millard, A. (2012). The potential of a culturally based supplemental
mathematics curriculum to improve the mathematics performance of Alaska Native and other students. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 43(1), 75-113.

Klibanoff, R.S., Levine, S.C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L.V. (2006). Preschool children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of
teacher ‘math talk.’ Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 59–69.

Klute, M., Apthorp, H., Harlacher, J., & Reale, M. (2017). Formative Assessment and Elementary School Student Academic Achievement: A Review of
the Evidence. REL 2017-259. Regional Educational Laboratory Central.

Knight, J. (2011). Unmistakable impact: A partnership approach for dramatically improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kovalik, S., & Olsen, K. (1994). ITI: The model. Integrated thematic instruction. Kent, WA: Books for Educators.

Kraft, M., Blazar, D. & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teaching coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence.
Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588.

Kuhfeld, M., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Lewis, K. (2020). Learning during COVID-19: Initial findings on students’ reading and math
achievement and growth. NWEA Brief: Portland, OR.

Kwon, J. B., DeBruler, K., & Kennedy, K. (2019). A snapshot of successful K-12 online learning: Focused on the 2015-16 academic year in
Michigan. Journal of Online Learning Research, 5(2), 199-225.

Lampert, M. (2015). Deeper teaching. Students at the center: Deeper learning research series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

Lane, S. (2013). Performance assessment. In J.H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 313-329). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future. ESA Issue Brief# 03-11. Washington,
DC: US Department of Commerce.

Larson, M. (2016). The need to make homework comprehensible. Retrieved online: https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-
thePresident/Archive/Matt-Larson/The-Need-to-Make-Homework-Comprehensible.

Larson, M. (2018). Equity is more than access. Math Solutions. Retrieved online: https://mathsolutions.com/uncategorized/equity-is-more-than-
access/.

Larson, M. (2017). Mathematics Learning: A Journey Not a Sprint. Retrieved online: https://my.nctm.org/blogs/matthew-
larson/2017/12/20/mathematics-learning-a-journey-not-a-sprint.

Larson, M. R. & Kanold, T. D. (2016). Balancing the Equation: A Guide to School Mathematics for Educators and Parents: Contexts for Effective
Student Learning in the Common Core). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American
secondary education, 34-62.

Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M. & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18–24.

Lee, H., Chung, H. Q., Zhang, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The effectiveness and features of formative assessment in US K-12 education:
A systematic review. Applied Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124-140.

Leinwand, S., & Fleischman, S. (2004). Teach mathematics right the first time. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 88–89.

Lembke, E., & Foegen, A. (2005). Identifying indicators of early mathematics proficiency in Kindergarten and Grade 1. Technical Report 6).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Research Institute on Progress Monitoring.

Levasseur, K. & Cuoco, A. (2009). Mathematical Habits of Mind. In Teaching Mathematics through Problem Solving, pp. 34-35. NCTM: Reston, VA.

Lipka, J., Sharp, N., Adams, B., & Sharp, F. (2007). Creating a third space for authentic biculturalism: Examples from math in a cultural
context. Journal of American Indian Education, 94-115.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 72

Lucretia, A. & Kelemanik, G. (2020). A Routine for Reasoning to Ensure ALL Students are Modeling with Mathematics. NCTM Professional
Development Webinars. Retrieved online: https://www.nctm.org/online-learning/Webinars/Details/495

Ma, L. (2010). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United
States. 2nd ed. NY, NY: Routledge.

Maher, C. A. (2002). How Students Structure Their Own Investigations and Educate Us: What We've Learned from a Fourteen Year Study. Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 1-14.

Marcus, R., & Fey, J. T. (2003). Selecting quality tasks for problem-based teaching. In H. L. Schoen (Ed.), Teaching mathematics through problem
solving: Grades 6–12 (pp. 55–67). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making in Education: Evidence from Recent RAND
Research. Occasional Paper. Rand Corporation.

Masingila, J. O., Olanoff, D., & Kimani, P. M. (2018). Mathematical knowledge for teaching teachers: Knowledge used and developed by
mathematics teacher educators in learning to teach via problem solving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(5), 429-450.

Matsumura, L.C., Correnti, R., Walsh, M., DiPrima Bickel, D., & Zook-Howell, D. (2019) Online content-focused coaching to improve classroom
discussion quality, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(2), 191–215.

Mayer, R. (2013). Multimedia learning. In Educational Psychology Handbook: International Guide to Student Achievement, J. Hattie & E. Anderman
(Eds.). 396-398. New York: Routledge.

Mayes, R., Chase, P. N., & Walker, V. L. (2008). Supplemental practice and diagnostic assessment in an applied college algebra course. Journal of
College Reading and Learning, 38(2), 7-30.

McKenzie, K. B., Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Rice, D., & Hawes, D. P. (2011). Math and science academic success in three large, diverse, urban high
schools: a teachers' story. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16(2), 100-121.

McLeskey, J., Waldron, N. L., So, T. S. H., Swanson, K., & Loveland, T. (2001). Perspectives of teachers toward inclusive school programs. Teacher
education and special education, 24(2), 108-115.

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2013). Essential questions: Opening doors to student understanding. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Meeuwse, K. & Mason, D. (2018). Personalized professional learning for educators: Emerging research and opportunities. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning,
culture and social interaction, 1(1), 12-21.

Merchant, Z., E. Goetz, W. Kenney-Kennicutt, O. Kwok, L. Cifuentes & T. Davis. (2012). The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual
reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 551-568.

Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life.
Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.

Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). (2010). What we know about mathematics teaching and learning, third edition.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Miller, S. P., & Hudson, P. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and
declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 47-57.

Miri, B., David, B-C., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in
Science Education, 37(4), 353–369.

Molnar, M. (2014). Richard Culatta: Five ways technology can close equity gaps. Education Week (Ed Week Market Brief). Retrieved online:
https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/richard_culatta_five_ways_technology_can_close_equity_gaps.html

Morgan, C., Craig, T., Schütte, M. & Wagner, D. (2014). Language and communication in mathematics education: an overview of research in the
field. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 46 (6), 843-853.
Moyer, P. S., & Milewicz, E. (2002). Learning to question: Categories of questioning used by preservice teachers during diagnostic mathematics
interviews. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(4), 293-315.

Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2014). Teachers promoting student mathematical reasoning. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 7(2),
1-20.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education 2016. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000, 2009). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved online:
http://www.nctm.org/ standards/content.aspx?id=16909.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2015). Position statement on procedural fluency in mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved
online: http://www.nctm.org/ Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Procedural- Fluency-in-Mathematics/

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2016). NCTM Position Statement: Large-Scale Mathematics Assessment and High-Stakes
Decisions. Retrieved online: https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/Position_Statements/Large-
Scale%20Assessments%200816.pdf

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 73

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2022). NCTM Position Statement: https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-
Statements/Access-and-Equity-in-Mathematics-Education/Moving Forward: Mathematics Learning in the Era of COVID-19.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved online: http://www2.ed.gov/about/ bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html.

National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.).
Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved
online: from http://www. nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309089492

National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills for the 21st century. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.

Osguthorpe, R. & C. Graham. (2003). Blended learning systems: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–234.

Page, S., & Clarke, J. (2014). Feeling your way to success through journaling. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 19(1), 3-8.

Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Saldívar García, E. (2020). The adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation: Insights for educational
leaders driving standards-based reform. AERA Open, 6(2), 2332858420932828.

Patrick, S. & A. Powell. (2009). A Summary of Research on the Effectiveness of K-12 Online Learning. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12
Online Learning.

Polya, G. (1965). Mathematical Discovery, Volume II: On Understanding, Learning, and Teaching Problem Solving. New York, NY: Wiley.

Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Washington DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Powell, S. R., Hebert, M. A., Cohen, J. A., Casa, T. M., & Firmender, J. M. (2017). A Synthesis of Mathematics Writing: Assessments, Interventions, and
Surveys. Journal of Writing Research, 8(3).

Presmeg, N. (2020). Visualization and learning in mathematics education. Encyclopedia of mathematics education, 900-904.

Public Impact. (2013). A Better Blend: A Vision for Boosting Student Outcomes with Digital Learning. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.

Raley, S. K., Shogren, K. A., & McDonald, A. (2018). How to implement the self-determined learning model of instruction in inclusive general
education classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(1), 62-71.

Riccomini, P. J., Witzel, B. S., & Deshpande, D. S. (2022). Combining Visual Representations and a Powerful Retention Strategy With Peer-Mediated
Strategies to Improve Mathematical Outcomes for Students With EBD. Beyond Behavior, 31(1), 42-52.

Rittle-Johnson, B. (2017). Developing mathematics knowledge. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 184-190.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge
of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587-597.

Rock, M.L. (2019). The eCoaching continuum for educators: Using technology to enrich professional development and improve student outcomes.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rohrer, D. (2009). The effects of spacing and mixed practice problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(1), 4–17.

Ross, S., G. Morrison & D. Lowther. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school
learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17-35.

Russek, B. (1998). Writing to learn mathematics. Writing Across the Curriculum, 9, 36-45.

Russell, S.J. (2000). Developing computational fluency with whole numbers. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(3), 154–158.

Russo, M., Hecht, D., Burghardt, M.D., Hacker, M., & Saxman, L. (2011). Development of a multidisciplinary middle school mathematics infusion
model. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6 (2), 113–128.

Santos-Trigo M. (2020) Problem-Solving in Mathematics Education. In: Lerman S. (eds) Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_129

Sarama, J., DiBiase, A. M., Clements, D. H., & Spitler, M. E. (2004). The professional development challenge in preschool mathematics. Engaging
young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education, 415-446.

Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. I. S. (2001). Enhancing students' understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to
professional support. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 4(1), 55-79.

Saylor, L. L., & Walton, J. B. (2018). Creating a math-talk learning community with preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 118(8),
348-357.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 74

Schifter, C. C., Natarajan, U., Ketelhut, D. J., & Kirchgessner, A. (2014). Data-Driven Decision Making: Facilitating Teacher Use of Student Data to
Inform Classroom Instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 419-432.

Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards
from an international perspective. Journal of curriculum studies, 37(5), 525-559.

Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM, 42(2), 149-161.

Schneider, M.C., Egan, K.L., & Julian, M.W. (2013). Classroom assessment in the context of high-stakes testing. In J.H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE
handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 55–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schunk, D., P. Pintrich, & J. Meece. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Senn, D., Rutherford, A. C., & Marzano, R. J. (2014). Identifying critical content: Classroom techniques to help students know what is important.
West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.

Shannon, G.S., & Bylsma, P. (2003). Nine characteristics of high-performing schools: A research-based resource for school leadership teams to
assists with the School Improvement Process. Olympia, Washington: Office of the School Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Shapka, J. D., Domene, J. F., & Keating, D. P. (2006). Trajectories of career aspirations through adolescence and young adulthood: Early math
achievement as a critical filter. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 347-358.

Sherin, B., & Fuson, K. (2005). Multiplication strategies and the appropriation of computational resources. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 36(4), 347–395.

Sherin, M. & van Es, E. (2003). A new lens on teaching: Learning to notice. Mathematics teaching in the middle school, 9(2), 92-95.

Sims, R., G. Dobbs & T. Hand. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance
Education, 23(2), 135–148.

Sircar, S., & Titus, S. (2015). Keeping things in proportion. At Right Angles, 4(2), 30-35.

Smith, M. & Stein, M. (2011). 5 Practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, Inc.

Smith, M.S., & Stein, M.K. (2018). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions (2nd ed). Resnick, VA: NCTM.

Sneider, C. I., & Ravel, M. K. (2021). Insights from Two Decades of P-12 Engineering Education Research. Journal of Pre-College Engineering
Education Research (J-PEER), 11(2), 5.

Star, J. R. (2015). When not to persevere – Nuances related to perseverance in mathematical problem solving. Chicago, IL: Spencer Foundation.
Retrieved from http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/28127/

Stein, M.K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship
between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.

Steiner, D., Weisberg, D, (2020). When Students Go Back to School, Too Many Will Start the Year Behind. Here’s How to Catch Them Up — in Real
Time. The 74 Million. (2020, April 26).

Stetson, R., Stetson, E., & Anderson, K. A. (2007). Differentiated instruction, from teachers’ experiences. The School Administrator, 8 (64), online.
Retrieved online: http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle. aspx?id=6528.

Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M.S. Donovan & J.D. Bransford,
(Eds), How How students learn: Science in the classroom (pp. 515-565). National Research Council, Committee on How People Learn, A
Targeted Report for Teachers, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Stiles, J. (2016). Supporting Mathematical Discourse in the Early Grades. Interactive STEM Research+ Practice Brief. Education Development
Center, Inc.

Strangman, N., Hall, T., & Meyer, A. (2004). Background knowledge instruction and the implications for UDL implementation. Retrieved Oct, 23,
2006.

Stylianou, D. A. (2011). An examination of middle school students’ representation practices in mathematical problem solving through the lens of
expert work: Towards an organizing scheme. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 265-280.

Stylianou, D.A., & Silver, E.A. (2004). The role of visual representations in advanced mathematical problem solving: An examination of expert-
novice similarities and differences. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(4), 353–387.

Sweeney, D. (2011). Student-centered coaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P.H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory-based instruction: Towards a theory of teaching. Educational
Researcher, 41(5), 147–156.

Tamim, R., R. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, P. Abrami & R. Schmid. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning:
A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 75

Tarasawa, B. & Samuel, A. (2021, January 13). Learning during COVID-19: Initial findings and 4 considerations for policymakers. Education
Commission of the States – Ed Note Blog. https://ednote.ecs.org/learning-during-covid-19-initial-findings-and-4-considerations-for-
policymakers/

Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chávez, Ó., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the
classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for research in mathematics education, 39(3), 247-280.

Taylor, R., & Chanter, C. (2016). The Coaching partnership: Tips for improving coach, mentor, teacher, and administrator effectiveness. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Taylor, J. A., & McDonald, C. (2007). Writing in groups as a tool for non-routine problem solving in first year university mathematics. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(5), 639-655.

Taylor, L. & J. Parsons. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1). Retrieved from: http://cie.asu.edu/.

Tibbitt, J. (2020). Formative Assessment: A Tool for Closing Achievement Gaps in Diverse Classrooms. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf
Education, 21, 72-75.

Tomlinson, C.A. (1997). Meeting the needs of gifted learners in the regular classroom: Vision or delusion? Tempo, 17(1), 1, 10–12

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C.A., (2005). Traveling the road to differentiation in staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 26, 8–12.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.

Uğur, B., B. Akkoyunlu & S. Kurbanoğlu. (2011). Students’ opinions on blended learning and its implementation styles. Education and Information
Technologies, 16(1), 5-23.

Ukpokodu, O. N. (2011). How do I teach mathematics in a culturally responsive way?: Identifying empowering teaching practices. Multicultural
Education, 19(3), 47-56.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education.
Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2019). Nine Dimensions for Supporting STEM Learning with Technology.
Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition. (2020.) Integration of English Language while Teaching Mathematics,
Washington, DC: Author.

Urquhart, V. (2009). Using Writing to Improve Math Learning. Middle Ground, 12(4), 17.

Van Garderen, D. (2006). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities. Journal of
learning disabilities, 39(6), 496-506.

Warshauer, H. (2015). Productive struggle in middle school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(4), 375-400.

Watson, J. M., Campbell, K. J., & Collis, K. F. (1996). Fairness and fractions in early childhood. In Technology in Mathematics Education (1), 588-595.

Wei, R., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on
teacher professional development in the United States and abroad (technical report). Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.

WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition. Kindergarten-grade 12. Board of Regents of the University
of Wisconsin System.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wilcox, B., & Monroe, E. E. (2011). Integrating writing and mathematics. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 521-529.

Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G.
Cizek (Eds.), The handbook of formative assessment (pp. 17–40). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Wiliam, D. (2018). Assessment for learning: meeting the challenge of implementation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 25(6), 682-685.

Williams, K. M. (2003). Writing about the problem solving process to improve problem solving performance. The Mathematics Teacher, 96(3), 185-
187.

Wood, K., Kissel, B., & Haag, K. (2014). What happens after staff development: A model for self-coaching in literacy. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Xenofontos, C. (2019). Equity and social justice in mathematics education: A brief introduction. In C. Xenofontos (Ed.), Equity in Mathematics
Education: Addressing a Changing World. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. pp. 1-23.

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 76

Yang, D. C., & Sianturi, I. A. J. (2019). Assessing students' conceptual understanding using an online three-tier diagnostic test. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 35(5), 678-689.

Yeager, D., Walton, G., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Addressing achievement gaps with psychological interventions. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(5), 62-65.

Yoder, N. (2014). Teaching the Whole Child: Instructional Practices That Support Social-Emotional Learning in Three Teacher Evaluation
Frameworks. Research-to-Practice Brief. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders.

Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, T., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student
achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). San Antonio, TX: Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

Yow, J. A. (2015). “Can You Tell Me More?” Student Journaling and Reasoning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 21(2), 72-76.

Zhang, D. (2005). Interactive multimedia-based e-learning: A study of effectiveness. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 149-162.

Zimmerman, R. H., Maker, C. J., & Alfaiz, F. (2020). Culturally responsive assessment of life science skills and abilities: Development, field testing,
implementation, and results. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 329-366.

Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Meeting common core standards across disciplines, grades 5-12. John Wiley & Sons.

Zwiers, J., Dieckmann, J., Rutherford-Quach, S., Daro, V., Skarin, R., Weiss, S., & Malamut, J. (2017). Principles for the design of mathematics
curricula: Promoting language and content development. Retrieved from Stanford University, UL/SCALE website:
http://ell.stanford.edu/content/mathematics-resources-additional-resources

Research Foundations: Evidence Base, HMH Into Math | 77

HMH RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS
Research Into Practice Into Results

RESEARCH RESULTS
System 44 : Murrieta Valley Unified School District
®

STUDY PROFILE STUDY CONDUCTED BY:

RMC Research
DISTRICT:

RESEARCH Murrieta Valley Unified School District (MVUSD), CA OUTCOME MEASURES:

RESEARCH
• California Standards Test of English Language Arts (CST ELA)

PROFESSIONAL
GRADES: • Reading Inventory®
4–8 • Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

FOUNDATIONS: PAPER STUDY DESIGN:

Gold: Strong (ESSA) 1
• Woodcock-Johnson® III (WJ III®)
• Phonics Inventory®
• Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)
• Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC)

EVIDENCE BASE MAKING EFFECTIVE USE

EVALUATION PERIOD:
2010–2011 school year IMPLEMENTATION:

OF A FLEXIBLE BLENDED 60-Minute Model

LEARNING MODEL
DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS IMPLEMENTATION MODEL
HMH Into Literature™ Students who were placed into System 44® classrooms were expected

MATH 180 ® Murrieta Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) is located in Murrieta,
California, on the southwestern edge of Riverside County. MVUSD serves
approximately 22,000 students across 18 schools from Grades K through
to receive 60 minutes of instruction daily. The implementation guidelines
included specified time for Whole Group Instruction (5–10 minutes),
System 44 Instructional Software (20–25 minutes), and Small Group/
12. The majority of MVUSD students are either White (48%) or Hispanic Independent Work (20–25 minutes). Students who were placed into
(33%). Other ethnicities represented include African American (5%), Asian control group classrooms were expected to receive the district’s regularly
(4%), and Filipino (4%). Four percent are English learners (EL) and 11% qualify implemented instruction using a variety of grade-appropriate reading
for special education services. Approximately one-quarter of all students intervention programs.
in the district qualify for free and reduced-price lunch.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 344 students who met the eligibility criteria were selected
METHODOLOGY to participate. Of these, 173 were randomly assigned to receive
System 44, and 171 were randomly assigned to receive the district’s
During the 2010–2011 school year, students from 11 schools in MVUSD
regularly implemented intervention programs. The System 44 and control
were selected to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) study,
group samples were matched according to demographic characteristics
led by a third party firm, RMC Research. Participation was based on a
and baseline CST ELA scores (Table 1).
two-step screening process. The first step consisted of students who
performed below the 50th percentile on the California Standards Test
of English Language Arts (CST ELA) and who scored below 600 Lexile
(L) measure on the Reading Inventory. Students who met Tier 1 criteria
who also demonstrated foundational reading deficiencies (Beginning
or Developing Decoder) on the Phonics Inventory were eligible to
participate in this study (Tier 2).

1
Gold-level studies use the highest level of rigorous design. Specifically, Gold-level studies use randomized control trial (RCT) design to randomly assign students to treatment and control groups.
These studies are eligible to receive the highest rating for Meeting Evidence Standards from What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). Following the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), these studies provide Strong evidence.
System 44 was studied in two large and diverse school districts. This Strong System 44 RCT study, conducted in Murrieta Valley USD, CA, in combination with the System 44 RCT study conducted in Saginaw PublicSchools, MI, represents
a large and multi-site sample.

RESEARCH FOUNDATIONS RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH RESULTS

PAPERS PAPERS PAPERS
Research Foundations papers Research Professional Papers Research Results papers summarize
provide an in-depth account of the highlight an important theoretical the findings from research studies
theoretical underpinnings, evidence construct, practical application, conducted on HMH programs,
base, and expert opinions that guide program component, or other topic including research conducted internally
the design and development of new related to learning in the context by HMH and externally by third-party
and revised programs. These papers of HMH programs. They are research firms. Research Results
map known research and design authored by experts in the field, papers document the efficacy of a
principles to practical applications researchers, and thought leaders program in terms of ESSA evidence
of the program. within the industry. levels: strong evidence, moderate
evidence, promising evidence, and
evidence that demonstrates a rationale
for program effectiveness.

To learn more about HMH’s dedication to research and efficacy, visit

hmhco.com/research
 HMH Into Math

RESEARCH
EVIDENCE BASED

EVIDENCE &
EFFICACY

Browse our library of research at hmhco.com/researchlibrary

HMH Into Math ®, Ed Your Friend in Learning ®, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt®, and HMH ® are trademarks or registered trademarks of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. © Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved. 05/212 WF1576701

hmhco.com