Research

Behind the Difference that Gets Results

Theoretical and Empirical

Support for Saxon Math
Theoretical and
Empirical Support for

Table of Contents
Foundational Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Theoretical Framework for Saxon Math . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Incremental Instruction Distributed Across the Level . . . . . . . 5
Continual Practice Distributed Across the Level . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Cumulative Assessment Distributed Across the Level . . . . . . 6
Efficacy Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Historical Effectiveness of Saxon Math:
Elementary & Middle School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Experimental Studies of Saxon Math:
Elementary & Middle School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Middle School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Eighth Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 Foundational Research
A well-articulated curriculum challenges students to learn increasingly more
sophisticated mathematical ideas as they continue their studies. John Saxon,
founder of Saxon Publishers, had a similar philosophy in mind when in the
early 1980s he developed his theory-based distributed approach to
mathematics instruction, practice, and assessment. Saxon’s approach has
evolved to include a K–12 textbook series with a comprehensive approach
Effective concept to mathematics.

development involves Because smaller pieces of information are easier to teach and easier to learn,
the Saxon Math series was developed by breaking down complex concepts
incremental skill instruction, into related increments. The instruction, practice, and assessment of those
increments were systematically distributed across each grade level. Practice
distributed throughout a
is continual, and assessment is cumulative. The Saxon approach differs from
school year. most programs in that it distributes instruction, practice, and assessment
throughout the lessons and school year instead of massing these elements.
In a massed approach, instruction, practice, and assessment of a skill or
concept occur within a short period of time and are clustered within a single
chapter or unit. In the Saxon Math program, as students encounter new
increments of instruction, they also continually review previously introduced
math concepts. Frequent assessments of new and old concepts are
encountered throughout the lessons, ensuring that students truly integrate
and retain critical math skills.

Theoretical Framework for Saxon Math

Saxon’s instructional approach to teaching mathematics is supported by
Gagne’s (1962, 1965) cumulative-learning theory and Anderson’s (1983)
ACT theory. Gagne’s theory of cumulative learning is based on the premise
that intellectual skills can be broken down into simpler skills, which can in
turn be divided into even simpler skills. Research has shown that intellectual
skill objectives are arranged into a pattern that reveals prerequisite
relationships among them (Gagne & Briggs, 1974). Thus, lower
level skills must be mastered before higher level skills can in turn
be mastered. Anderson’s ACT theory explains the
development of expertise through three stages: cognitive,
associative, and autonomous. During the cognitive stage,
learners rehearse and memorize facts related to a
particular domain or skill that guide them in problem

4 Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math

solving. Within the associative stage, learners are able to detect errors and
misunderstandings through continual practice and feedback. By the time
learners have reached the autonomous stage, they have practiced a skill to
the extent that it becomes automated, thus reducing the amount of working
memory needed to perform the skill and leading to expertise with that skill.

Incremental Instruction, Distributed Across the Level

Research also suggests there is value in a teaching method that uses small,
easily digestible chunks of information within its lessons (Ausubel, 1969;
Brophy & Everston, 1976). Studies by Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) and
Brophy and Everston (1976) demonstrated the importance of using
incremental steps when teaching new information. Effective concept
development involves incremental skill instruction distributed throughout a
school year.

Continual Practice, Distributed Across the Level

Foundational research has also shown that distributed instruction results in
greater student achievement (English, Wellburn, & Killian, 1934) and leads
to a higher level of recall (Glenberg, 1979; Hintzman, 1974) than does
massed instruction. Distributed instruction with incremental practice and
review has been found effective at all grade levels in a variety of subjects,
including mathematics, science, and reading comprehension (Dempster,
1988; English et al., 1934; Hintzman, 1974; Reynolds & Glasser, 1964).
Research studies have shown that students who are taught with a
mathematics curriculum that uses continual practice and review demonstrate
greater math achievement and skill acquisition than do students who are
taught with a mass approach (Good & Grouws, 1979; Hardesty, 1986;
MacDonald, 1984; Mayfield & Chase, 2002; Ornstein, 1990; Usnick, 1991).
Dempster (1991) noted that the benefits of review have been validated by
research since the early part of the 20th century, and numerous studies
suggest that when review is incorporated into the learning process, both the
quantity and quality of what is learned is improved. Studies in cognitive
science also support continual practice, because it develops computational
automaticity—it increases retrieval speed, reduces time required for
recognition, and decreases interference (Klapp, Boches, Trabert, & Logan,
1991; Pirolli & Anderson, 1985; Thorndike, 1921).

Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math 5

 Cumulative Assessment,
Distributed Across the Level
In terms of cumulative assessment, research has indicated that well-designed
classroom testing programs that are routine rather than are an interruption
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000) have a positive
impact on later student achievement (Dempster, 1991). Dempster found that
higher levels of achievement occur when testing is frequent and cumulative
rather than infrequent or related only to content covered since the last test.
Benefits are most noted when tests are an integral part of the instructional
approach; administered regularly and frequently; and collected, scored,
recorded, and returned to students promptly, thus preventing any
misunderstanding from becoming ingrained. Furthermore, Cotton (2001)
noted that students who are tested frequently and given feedback have more
positive attitudes toward tests.

According to Fuchs (1995), assessments enhance instruction by monitoring

student learning, evaluating instructional programs, and revealing remediation
needs. In particular, cumulative assessment that is frequent and distributed
has been found to be effective by a number of studies which have shown
that students who are assessed frequently have higher test scores than do
students who are assessed infrequently (Blair, 2000; Peckham & Roe, 1977;
Rohm, Sparzo, & Bennett, 1986).

Figure 1.
Growth in TAAS Texas Learning Index by group (and statewide)
Efficacy
85
Saxon
Studies 1

83.8 84.0
84
Control
83.6 Historical Effectiveness of
Statewide
Saxon Math: Elementary
Texas Learning Index

82.7
83
and Middle School
81.6 82.4
Since 2005, Harcourt Achieve has
82 81.5
contracted with PRES Associates—an
80.8
81
external, independent educational
81.2
research firm—to conduct analyses
80.7
80 using longitudinal state assessment
data to document the effectiveness of
79 Saxon’s elementary and middle school
Pre-Saxon 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
math programs over time in several
states, including South Carolina
(Resendez, Sridharan, & Azin, 2007),
California (Resendez & Azin, 2007), Georgia (Resendez & Manley, 2005),
and Texas (Resendez, Fahmy, & Manley, 2005; Resendez, Sridharan, & Azin,
2006). Analyses were conducted during specified years on school and
student-level achievement data that compared users of Saxon Math to those
who used other math curricula during the same years.

1
For further information on the evaluation reports cited in this section, please visit the Saxon Web
site at www.SaxonMath.com

6 Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math

The findings across these studies are consistent: Saxon Math works. The
longitudinal data from these states indicate that elementary and middle
school students in Saxon schools have shown significant growth in math
achievement over time. Furthermore, these gains are immediate and
sustainable (see Figure 1). Teachers and schools see results quickly. Saxon
Math has also been effective for those groups of students that typically
struggle academically including English language learners, students classified
as special education, economically disadvantaged students, and minorities.

The South Carolina study (Resendez et al., 2007) found that among Saxon
schools in South Carolina there is significant growth in achievement on the
statewide math assessment (Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test [PACT])
within both elementary and middle school grade levels (see Figures 2 and 3).
Students using Saxon Math in South Carolina from
2002 to 2006 have shown growth year after year in
Figure 2.
math achievement. Additional findings from South Elementary Saxon Students’ PACT Match Performance
Carolina suggest there are increasing trends in math (Growth from 3rd–5th grade)
performance among all subgroups in Saxon elementary
650
and middle schools, especially among limited English
600
proficient (LEP) students. Analyses found that LEP
550 502.9
students showed accelerated rates of math
PACT Scale Score

500
performance over time; specifically, a closing of the
450 405.5
achievement gap between Saxon LEP and non-LEP
400
students was shown to exist between these groups. In
350 306.6
addition, preliminary analyses, examining aggregated
300
PACT scores only, showed that the average
250
performance of both elementary and middle school
200
Saxon students was significantly higher than the 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade

average performance of non-Saxon students.

Experimental Studies of
Saxon Math: Elementary and
Middle School Figure 3.
A number of experimental and quasi-experimental Middle School Saxon Students’ PACT Match Performance
evaluations of the Saxon Math program (K–8) have (Growth from 6th–8th grade)
also been conducted through independent research
850
organizations, including universities and school-district 782.0
800
evaluation departments.
750
684.2
PACT Scale Score

Elementary School 700

In 2006, Harcourt Achieve contracted with Edvantia, 650
590.8
an independent research and evaluation firm, to 600

examine the effectiveness of Saxon elementary math 550

programs in a nationwide, large-scale study (Good, 500

Bickel, & Howley, 2006). The evaluation was 450

conducted by matching existing Saxon schools with 400

6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
demographically similar schools using other math

Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math 7

 programs and examining student-level achievement in math after 1 year of
implementation. Student achievement was measured using the Stanford
Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (SAT 9) in kindergarten, first, second, and
third grades.

Results indicated that, overall and for each grade level, Saxon students made
The Saxon approach significant gains on all three SAT 9 math achievement measures (overall
math achievement, math problem solving, and math procedures) over the
differs from most course of the school year (see Figure 4). Students in subgroups that are
programs in that typically regarded as academically, economically, or culturally disadvantaged
who were in Saxon schools made significant gains on all three SAT 9
it distributes instruction, achievement measures. Specifically, significant gains in achievement were
seen over time for English language learners, students who qualified for free
practice, and assessment… or reduced-priced lunch, students who were classified as special education,
throughout the lessons and minority group members.

Two other large-scale, quasi-experimental studies on the effectiveness of

and school year.
Saxon Math were conducted during 2 school years (1992–1994) by the
Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department of Oklahoma City Public
Schools (Nguyen, 1994; Nguyen & Elam, 1993). During the first year of the
evaluation, 1992–1993, researchers from the Oklahoma City Public Schools
Research, Planning, and Evaluation Department examined student achievement
from five Oklahoma City schools that had fully implemented the Saxon Math
program in kindergarten through fifth grade (Nguyen & Elam, 1993). These five
schools had been implementing Saxon Math for 2 years at the time of data
collection, minimizing any negative effects due to implementing a newly
acquired program.

Saxon students’ achievement on the math subtests of the Iowa Tests of

Basic Skills (ITBS) was compared to achievement from a matched-sample

Figure 4.
Average SAT 9 Math Achievement Growth for Saxon Students, Grades K–3

640 Pre 630.83

Post
620
606.63
597.14
600

576.00
Scaled Scores

580

560 553.35

539.31
540

520

500

480
Overall Math Achievement Math Problem Solving Math Procedures

Note. Math Problem Solving and Math Procedures, Grades 2 and 3 only.
All differences significant at the 95% confidence interval.

8 Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math

of students selected to be the control group, who were in classrooms that
used a Scott Foresman math text. Students were matched on grade level,
gender, race, socioeconomic status (SES), and the year prior ITBS total
math score. In general, students using the Saxon Math program scored
significantly higher than the control group on five out of the nine subtests of
the ITBS: Complete Composite, Total Mathematics, Mathematics Concepts,
Problem Solving, and Reading Comprehension (p < .05 for all significant
comparisons).

Student achievement was also examined by grade level. Grades 3, 4, and 5

from the five Saxon schools and a matched control sample from non-Saxon
schools were chosen for comparison. Saxon students had higher achievement
on 23 out of the 27 grade-level comparisons on the ITBS subtests. Eleven of
these differences were significant in favor of the Saxon group (p < .05). A
specific pattern of results within grade levels was not found, but generally
the Saxon group outperformed the control group on the majority of the grade-
level subtest comparisons.

To further evaluate the effectiveness of Saxon Math at the elementary level,

a second study was conducted by the Oklahoma City Public Schools,
Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department to examine student
achievement in math in Oklahoma City schools (Nguyen, 1994).This study
was conducted with five elementary schools in Oklahoma City that had
completely integrated the Saxon program in all grade levels. A matched
sample of the students using the Scott Foresman math text was selected to
be the control group. These students were matched to students using the
Saxon program on grade level, gender, race, SES, and the year prior ITBS
total math score.

The ITBS scores from the 1993–1994 school year were collected and used
to evaluate growth in mathematic skill over
the implementation time for both groups.

On the posttest ITBS, the students using Figure 5.

the Saxon Math product outscored the Iowa Test of Basic Skills Math Subtest Comparisons
control group students on all subtests: 60 58.76
59.4
Saxon Approach
Complete Composite, Total Math, Problem 58 Traditional Approach
Solving, Reading Comprehension, Math 56 55.45
55.06
55.00
Computation, Math Concepts, Science, 53.18
54
52.59
and Social Studies. However, only the
Scaled Scores

52
50.6
differences between groups on the Math
50
Concepts, Science, and Social Studies
48
tests were significant (p < .05). These
46
results indicate that, collapsed across
grade levels, students who used Saxon 44

Math at these Oklahoma schools achieved 42

greater gains in their knowledge of math 40

Complete Total Mathmatics Problem
concepts than did students who used the Composite Mathmatics Concepts Solving

Scott Foresman program (see Figure 5). All differences significant at the 95% confidence interval.

Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math 9

 Middle School
Harcourt Achieve contracted with PRES Associates in 2006 to conduct
analyses of the effectiveness of the Saxon Math middle school programs in
two Ohio school districts, using a randomized control trial design (Resendez
& Azin, 2006). Sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade teachers in both districts
were asked to use both Saxon Math and their districts’ current math program.
The use of Saxon Math was randomly assigned at the classroom level and
exclusively taught in those classrooms. Math achievement was measured
pre- and postimplementation using TerraNova Math. Data analyses found
that those students using Saxon Math experienced significant gains on the
TerraNova subtests (see Figure 6). Gains in performance were also found
within all subgroups examined, including special education status, free and
reduced-price lunch status, and minority status.

Further analysis of posttest performance found that students using Saxon

Math performed significantly better than students using other math programs
on the Math Computation subtest of the TerraNova. Saxon Math students
had higher posttest scores than did students using other programs on almost
half of the measured objects on the TerraNova (see Figure 7). Despite that
teachers were using both a new program and a program they were already
familiar with, those teachers using the Saxon Math program reported that
they were significantly more likely to feel they had support from the Saxon
Math program compared to their districts’ current program. Teachers also
felt that Saxon Math was an effective math program for their students and
were satisfied with their students’ progress.

Figure 6. Figure 7.
Saxon Math students’ TerraNova Math Computation postest scores of Saxon Math
performance at pre- and post testing and control students

700 Pre 700

Math Computation Scale Scores

690 685 Post 690

680 680 674

672 674
670 670 663
Scaled Scores

660 660
652 652
650 650

640 640

630 630

620 620

610 610

600 600
Control Saxon
Math (MC & CR) Math Computation
Note: These are adjusted posttest scores after controlling for initial pretest,
MC = mulitple choice, CR = constructed response minority status, attendance, grade, special education, class size,
free/reduced-price lunch, and school.

10 Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math

Several other examinations of the effectiveness of Saxon Math at the sixth-
grade level have found superior performance for the Saxon approach than
for programs based on the traditional unit-based approach. Specifically,
Rentschler (1994) found that after controlling for pretest differences, Saxon
students significantly outperformed a matched-sample of students using a
traditional unit-based program on the Mathematics Computation subtest of
the California Test of Basic Skills (see Figure 8). Similarly, Lafferty (1994)
reported that sixth-grade students using the Saxon program scored
significantly higher scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Seventh
Edition than did students in traditional-approach classrooms after controlling
for pretest differences (see Figure 9). Furthermore, Lafferty found that the
Saxon students had significantly less math anxiety at the end of the year than
did the students in traditional-approach classrooms.

Eighth Grade
Multiple investigations of the Saxon methodology have also be conducted at the
eighth-grade level to examine the effectiveness of the Saxon Algebra I and
Algebra ½ programs. Results of a 9-week study of Algebra I conducted by Clay
(1998) found that Saxon Math was effective at increasing math achievement
scores on teacher-created criterion-referenced math tests and helped students
overcome an initial math deficiency to bring about greater gains in math
achievement than did a control group using a traditional program.
Crawford and Raia (1986) examined the effectiveness of Saxon Algebra ½
with eighth-grade students in five different middle schools. Achievement on
the California Achievement Test (CAT) for students in Saxon classrooms

Figure 8. Figure 9.
Posttest Comparison of Math Computation Ability Mathematics Achievement Posttest Comparison for 6th Grade
Students using Saxon Math Vs. a Control Group Math Product
800
Math Computation Scale Scores

100 Note: Group differences for the adjusted posttest

790
Average Score on the Metropolitan

means significantly different at the 95%

783 90 confidence interval. A post-hoc effect size was
783 80 calculated from the exisiting data to be d = .42.
780
Achievement Test 7

70
770 60
51.23
761 50 44.01
760
40
750 30
20
740 10
Saxon Approach (N = 65) Traditional Approach (N = 146)
0
Note: Group differences for the adjusted posttest means significantly Saxon Approach (N = 324) Traditional Approach (N = 130)
different at the 95% confidence interval.
A post-hoc effect size was calculated from the exisiting data to be d = .73.

Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math 11

 Figure 10.
Gain Scores on the California Achievement Test Math

10 Saxon Approach (N = 39)

9 Traditional Approach (N = 39)

Average Gain Scores on the California

8
6.97

Achievement Test (CAT)

7

5
3.87
4
…all these results
3

provide a strong body 2

0.69
1
of evidence to support 0
Math Computation Total Math
the instructional -0.97

Note: The average gain for the Saxon Math group on Math Computation and Total Math
effectiveness of the score was significaltly higher that the Control group at the 95% confidence interval.
Post-hoc effect sizes were calculated from the exisitng data to be d = .55 for Math
Computation and d = .62 for Total Math.
Saxon Math programs.
was compared to those students in classrooms using a more traditional
approach to math instruction. After controlling for pretest differences, it was
found that the results significantly favored the Saxon program. A second
analysis matching students in the treatment and control groups by
preimplementation achievement level found that Saxon students made
significantly higher gains from pre to post on the CAT Math Computation
subtest and the Total Math score than did control group students (see Figure
10). A final analysis examined achievement on only those objectives covered
by both programs. The analysis found that the results were significantly
different in favor of the Saxon group, indicating that the higher gains in
achievement on the CAT for the Saxon Math students were not due to
performance on objectives that were unique to the Saxon program.

Finally, in a recent evaluation of the Saxon Math program, Baldree (2003)

found that eighth-grade students who used the Saxon Math program had
significantly higher scores on the Computation and Concepts and Estimation
subtests of the Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test than did a
matched group of students who received pre-algebra instruction based on a
constructivist-based model. Taken together, all these results provide a strong
body of evidence to support the instructional effectiveness of the Saxon
Math programs from kindergarten to eighth grade.

12 Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math

References
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Ausubel, D. P. (1969). Readings in school learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

and Winston.

Baldree, C. L. P. (2003). The effectiveness of two mathematical instructional programs

on the mathematics growth of eighth grade students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Blair, J. (2000). ETS study links effective teaching methods to test-score gains.
Education Week, 20(8), 24.

Brophy, J., & Everston, C. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental

perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Clay, D. W. (1998). A study to determine the effects of a non-traditional approach to

algebra instruction on student achievement. Unpublished master’s thesis, Salem-
Teikyo University, Salem, West Virginia.

Cotton, K. (2001). Monitoring student learning in the classroom. Northwest Regional

Educational Laboratory. Retrieved October 8, 2002, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/
sirs/2/cu4.html

Crawford, J. R., & Raia, F. (1986). Executive summary: Analysis of eighth grade math
texts and achievement. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma City Public Schools, Planning,
Research, and Evaluation Department.

Dempster, F. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply results to
psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627–634.

Dempster, F. (1991, April). Synthesis of research on reviews and tests. Educational

Leadership, 48, 71–76.

English, H. B., Wellburn, E. L., & Killian, C. D. (1934). Studies in substance memorization.
Journal of General Psychology
Psychology, 11, 233–260.

Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Connecting performance assessment to instruction: A comparison

of behavioral assessment, mastery learning, curriculum-based measurement, and
performance assessment (ERIC Digest E530). Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED381984)

Gagne, R. M. (1962). The acquisition of knowledge. Psychological Review, 69,

355–365.

Gagne, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.

Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design. Fort Worth, TX:
HBJ College Publisher.

Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions

on recall and recognition. Memory and Cognition, 7, 95–112.

Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math 13

 Good, K., Bickel, R., & Howley, C. (2006). Saxon elementary math program effectiveness
study: Final report. Charleston, WV: Author.

Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1979). The Missouri mathematics effectiveness project.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 355–362.

Hardesty, B. (1986). Notes and asides. National Review, 37, 21–22.

Hintzman, D. L. (1974). Increasing your teaching effectiveness. In R. L. Solso (Ed.),

Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola symposium. (pp. 77–99). Potomac,
MD: Erlbaum.

Klapp, S. T., Boches, C. A., Trabert, M. L., & Logan, G. D. (1991). Automatizing alphabet
arithmetic: II. Are there practice effects after automaticity is achieved? Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 196–209.

Lafferty, J. F. (1994). The links among mathematics text, students’ achievement, and
students’ mathematics anxiety: A comparison of incremental development and
traditional texts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University, Chester,
Pennsylvania.

MacDonald, C. J. (1984). A comparison of three methods of utilizing homework in a

precalculus college algebra course. Unpublished dissertation, Ohio State University,
Columbus.

Mayfield, K. H., & Chase, P. N. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics
problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 105–123.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for

school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Nguyen, K. (1994). The 1993–94 Saxon Mathematics program evaluation report.

Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma City Public Schools.

Nguyen, K., & Elam, P. (1993). The 1992–93 Saxon Mathematics program evaluation
report. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma City Public Schools.

Ornstein, A. C. (1990). Practice and drill: Implications for instruction. National

Association of Secondary School Principals, 74, 112–117.

Peckham, P. D., & Roe, M. D. (1977). The effects of frequent testing. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 10, 40–50.

Pirolli, P. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). The role of practice in fact retrieval. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 136–153.

14 Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math

Rentschler, R. V. (1994). The effects of Saxon’s incremental review on computational
skills and problem-solving achievement of sixth-grade students. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 56 (02), 484A. (UMI No. 9518017)

Resendez, M., & Azin, M. (2006, November). Saxon Middle School Math Randomized
Control Trial. Austin, TX: Harcourt.

Resendez, M. & Azin, M. (2007, January). The relationship between using Saxon
elementary and middle school math and student performance on California statewide
assessments. Austin, TX: Harcourt.

Resendez, M., Fahmy, A., & Manley, M. A. (2005, April). The relationship between using
Saxon middle school math and student performance on Texas statewide assessments.
Austin, TX: Harcourt.

Resendez, M., & Manley, M. A. (2005, December). The relationship between using
Saxon elementary and middle school math and student performance on Georgia
statewide assessments. Austin, TX: Harcourt.

Resendez, M., Sridharan, S., & Azin, M. (2006, June). The relationship between using
Saxon elementary school math and student performance on Texas statewide
assessments. Austin, TX: Harcourt.

Resendez, M., Sridharan, S., & Azin, M. (in press). The relationship between using
Saxon Math at the elementary and middle school levels and student performance on
the South Carolina statewide assessment. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates.

Reynolds, J. H., & Glasser, R. (1964). Effects of repetition and spaced review upon
the retention of a complex learning task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55,
297–308.

Rohm, R. A., Sparzo, F. J., & Bennett, C. M. (1986). College student performance under
repeated testing and cumulative conditions: Report on five studies. Journal of
Educational Research, 80, 99–104.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching: Vol. 3. (pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.

Thorndike, E. L. (1921). The psychology of drill in arithmetic: The amount of practice.

The Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 183–194.

Usnick, V. F. (1991). It’s not drill and practice, it’s drill or practice. School Science
and Mathematics, 91, 344–347.

Theoretical and Empirical Support for Saxon Math 15

 You Can’t Compare
Apples to Oranges.
Saxon Math is different from other
math programs. It’s structured to help every
student be a successful math problem solver.
It provides the time students need to learn,
master, and apply mathematical concepts.

Choose the difference

that gets results — Saxon Math.

6277 Sea Harbor Dr. Orlando, FL 32887

www.SaxonMath.com 1.800.531.5015

9994053396 2760/12.5M/PR/HORI/10–07