MATH 180

Study: HMH (2014)

HMH (2014) Early Outcome Effects of a Blended Learning Model for Math Intervention Instruction With Special Population Students, HMH Research Update, New York, NY.

Descriptive Information

Usage

Acquisition and Cost

Program Specifications and Requirements

Training

MATH 180 is an intervention mathematics program that rebuilds the foundational skills that struggling students need to prepare for algebra readiness. MATH 180 is a blended learning program, consisting of rotations between teacher led instruction and student paced software.

MATH 180 is intended for use in grades 5 through high school. The program is intended for use with students with disabilities (including learning disabilities and behavioral disabilities), English language learners, and any student at risk of academic failure. The academic area of focus is math (including computation, concepts, word problems, algebra, geometry, and fractions).

Where to Obtain: 
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Representative
125 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 888-918-6158
Web Site: www.hmhco.com/products/math-180

Cost: MATH 180 is sold as a program combining consumable student materials, perpetual licenses to the responsive student software, and teacher materials (digital and print) and price varies based on purchase. The teacher materials include licenses to SAM Central where they will find downloadable resources and interactive whiteboard tools, and data and analytics tools, as well as printed Teacher Guides, annotated mSpace books, Resources for Differentiated Instruction, and the Getting Started and Professional Learning guides. A Classroom Materials Box is included with Course I. Most purchases of MATH 180 include two in-person Getting Started professional learning days. Additional coaching days can be purchased. 

It is recommended that MATH 180 is used with small groups of students 45-60 minutes per session, five days a week.

The program includes a highly specified teacher’s manual.

MATH 180 requires technology. Students rotate between teacher-led small group instruction and personalized software. Students will spend 20-25 minutes in each rotation every day.

Training is required for the instructor. The instruction training includes 16-24 hours of hands-on training to learn functionality of the program and two in-person days of professional learning covering the content, approach, materials, and data/reporting. Ongoing training materials are embedded within the program.

The minimum qualifications of instructors are that they must be professionals (Interventionist/Generalist for Course I and Stronger Mathematics for Course II).

 

Teachers can receive additional coaching, courses and have access to professional videos within the program itself to refresh or refine their use of the instructional model and program components including the instructional software and high leverage teaching practices.

 

 

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Sample size: Students were selected from four distinctive geographic districts.  There were 10 schools using the MATH 180 program and a matched set of 10 additional schools that served as comparisons. Student grade level ranged from 6th through 8th.  All students in the study were identified by their district/school as being at risk in the area of mathematics based on factors including previous year performance on state assessments, grades NWEA MAP and the Math Inventory.  As a result these students were selected in both the MATH 180 and comparison schools for additional intervention math support (Program = 575, Control = 351). 

Risk Status: All students in the study were identified by their district/school as being at risk in the area of mathematics based on factors including not passing their state assessment or previous math course, NWEA MAP and the Math Inventory. Students were on average below the 25th percentile at the start of the study. Students in the study were in the 6th through 8th grade. The 25th percentile for the 6th grade is 645Q, 7th and 8th grade are even higher at 665Q and 730Q respectively. 

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

Cox Index

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 1

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

227

39.5

154

44.1

0.10

  Grade 7

225

39.1

116

33.2

0.16

  Grade 8

123

21.4

79

22.6

0.07

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

173

30.1

109

31.2

0.03

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

26

4.5

14

4

0.14

  Hispanic

273

47.5

170

48.4

0.00

  White

85

14.8

51

14.6

0.00

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

457

79.5

283

81.1

0.04

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

 

 

 

 

 

  Learning disabilities

83

14.4

61

17.5

0.18

  Behavior disorders

 

 

 

 

 

  Intellectual disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

  Not identified with a disability

 

 

 

 

 

ELL status

  English language learner

176

30.6

102

29.2

0.06

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

 

Gender

Female

283

49.2

174

49.3

0.00

Male

292

50.8

177

50.7

0.00

Training of Instructors: Math 180 teachers received 3 days of training on the program and periodic coaching to reinforce the quality of the program’s implementation. 

Design: Unconvincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: No

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Yes

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: N/A

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences?: Yes

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes

Was there attrition bias1 ?: No

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: No

 

1 NCII follows guidance from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in determining attrition bias. The WWC model for determining bias based on a combination of differential and overall attrition rates can be found on pages 13-14 of this document: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pd (link is external)f

Fidelity of Implementation: Unconvincing Evidence

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Levels of program implementation fidelity were tracked in multiple ways.  The research team utilized three methods for triangulating the level of program implementation; 1) student software activity (which accounted for use of software and teacher progress via mSkills assessments), 2) classroom observations and 3) a teacher survey

Program fidelity was monitored through an examination of the student’s software data which captures their number of sessions, time spent, activity and performance in each of the program’s zones. In addition, mSkills assessments which occur at the end of each teacher led instructional block were captured through the software. This data yielded how many instructional blocks the teacher completed and how each student performed on the assessment. In addition, teacher surveys, interviews with math coaches and periodic classroom observations were conducted.  

Each school also received 6-8 visits by Math Solutions coaches throughout the study year.  These coaches provided regular guidance to teachers and administrators on implementing the program with fidelity.

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: As reported in the research update “Early Outcome Effects of a Blended Learning Model for Math Intervention Instruction With Special Population Students” average progress through the blocks for SPED, EL and FRL was 3.43, 4.34, and 3.88 respectively. These are within the normal and expected ranges for MATH 180. Teacher facilitated instruction progressed to block 5 which was also within the normal and expected range of progress for the program. 

Teachers were also observed at three separate times throughout the study year although there was no second observer so intercoder agreement was not applicable.

Measures Targeted: Data Unavailable

Measures Broader: Convincing Evidence

Targeted  Measure

Reliability Statistics

Relevance to Program Instructional Content

Exposure to Related Content Among Control Group

None

 

 

 

Broader  Measure

Reliability Statistics

Relevance to Program Instructional Content

Exposure to Related Content Among Control Group

Math Inventory (MI)

Marginal Reliability: 0.97

Test Retest Reliability: 0.78

MATH 180 is an intervention program designed to cover the foundational skills and concepts from early elementary grades up to algebra readiness. MI is a native Quantile achievement test that covers math achievement from K-Algebra II.

Both treatment and comparison groups were provided supplemental math instruction in addition to their regular core class.

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 1 Math

Mean ES - Targeted: Data Unavailable

Mean ES - Broader: Data Unavailable

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Construct

Measure

Effect Size

 

None

 

Broader Measures

Construct

Measure

Effect Size

Math

Math Inventory (MI)

Key

*        p ≤ .05

**      p ≤ .01

***    p ≤ .001

–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes

†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): N/A

Disaggregated Data for Demographic Subgroups: Yes

Targeted Measures

Construct

Measure

Effect Size

 

None

 

Broader Measures

Construct

Measure

Effect Size

Math

Math Inventory (MI) – SPED

0.39*

Math

Math Inventory (MI) – EL

0.34**

Math

Math Inventory (MI) – FRPL

0.32***

Key

*        p ≤ .05

**      p ≤ .01

***    p ≤ .001

–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes

†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Disaggregated Data for <20th Percentile: No

Administration Group Size: Small Group, (n=12)

Duration of Intervention: 45-60 minutes, 5 times a week

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional, 16-24 hours of training

Reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA: E-ESSA

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

None of the studies considered met Evidence for ESSA's inclusion requirements.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 2 studies

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2014b) MATH 180 Students Report Greater Growth Than Comparison Students on SMI and NWEA-MAP, HMH Research Update, New York, NY

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2015) Early Effects of MATH 180 on Academic Achievement, HMH Research Update, New York, NY