The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has consistently emphasized the importance of curricular coherence in mathematics education. However, the predominance of the Internet has led to a lack of consistency in the use and quality of curricular materials. We drew on teachers’ self-report of their use of curriculum materials and conducted a Latent Class Analysis to examine patterns in 56 elementary teachers’ selection, use, and perceptions of materials for teaching mathematics, including the role that teacher expertise may play in these patterns. Findings indicated that the most salient difference between classes was at least one digital resource reported—the Blended class—and no digital resources reported—the Non-Digital class. Teacher expertise was not a significant covariate. Future research should examine the role of policies on teachers’ curricular decisions. Implications include how specialist programs may support positive patterns of curriculum selection and use.

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

• Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J., Jones, D. L., & Park-Rogers, M. (2006). Examining instructional practices in Core-Plus lessons: Implications for professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(6), 517–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-9019-3
• Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2013). Standards for elementary mathematics specialists: A reference for teacher credentialing and degree programs. San Diego, CA.
• Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME +. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
• Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
• Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430-454. https://doi.org/10.1086/657654
• Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2014). The mathematical knowledge and beliefs of elementary mathematics specialist-coaches. ZDM, 46(2), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0559-6
• Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C., & Mitchell, R. N. (2012). Two negatives don’t always make a positive: Exploring how limitations in teacher knowledge and the curriculum contribute to instructional quality. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 489-513. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.716974
• Choppin, J., & Borys, Z. (2017). Trends in the design, development, and use of digital curriculum materials. ZDM, 49(5), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0860-x
• Choppin, J., Carson, C., Borys, Z., Cerosaletti, C., & Gillis, R. (2014). A typology for analyzing digital curricula in mathematics education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 2(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.95334
• Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300089479.001.0001
• Davis, J., Choppin, J., Roth McDuffie, A., & Drake, C. (2013). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Middle School Teachers’ Perceptions. Rochester, NY: Warner Center for Professional Development and Education Reform.
• de Araujo, Z., Webel, C., & Reys, B. B. (2017). Preparing elementary mathematics specialists: Essential knowledge, skills, and experiences. In M. B. McGatha & N. R. Rigelman (Eds.), Elementary Mathematics Specialists (pp. 19-32): Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE).
• Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Developing curriculum vision and trust. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 321-337). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Drijvers, P., Tacoma, S., Besamusca, A., Doorman, M., & Boon, P. (2013). Digital resources inviting changes in mid-adopting teachers’ practices and orchestrations. ZDM, 45(7), 987-1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0535-1
• Dziak, J. J., Lanza, S. T., & Tan, X. (2014). Effect size, statistical power and sample size requirements for the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test in Latent Class Analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(4), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919819
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
• Fennell, F. S. (2011). We need elementary mathematics specialists now, more than ever: A historical perspective and call to action. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 13(2), 52-59.
• Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9159-8
• Gutiérrez, R. (2016). Strategies for creative insubordination in mathematics teaching. Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics, 7(1), 52–60.
• Hanson, K., & Carlson, B. (2005). Effective access: Teachers’ use of digital resources in STEM teaching. Education Development Center, Inc.
• Heck, D. J., Chval, K. B., Weiss, I. R., & Ziebarth, S. W. (Eds.). (2012). Approaches to studying the enacted mathematics curriculum (Vol. 10). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
• Herbst, P. (2010). Practical rationality and the justification for actions in mathematics teaching. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
• Hill, H. C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 513-545. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.5.0513
• Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition & Instruction, 26(4), 430-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235
• Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12437203
• Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Vahey, P., & Roschelle, J. (2013). Cornerstone mathematics: Designing digital technology for teacher adaptation and scaling. ZDM, 45(7), 1057-1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0540-4
• Kasten, S. E., & Sinclair, N. (2009). Using dynamic geometry software in the mathematics classroom: A study of teachers’ choices and rationales. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(4), 133-143.
• Linzer, D. A., & Lewis, J. B. (2011). poLCA: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(10), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i10
• Lloyd, G. M., & Wilson, M. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher’s conceptions of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 248-274. https://doi.org/10.2307/749790
• Lloyd, G. M., Cai, J., & Tarr, J. E. (2017). Issues in Curriculum Studies: Evidence-Based Insights and Future Directions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 244–272). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Manouchehri, A. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers: What are the dilemmas? Journal of Teacher Education, 49(4), 276-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487198049004005
• Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge within. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004011522216
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington D.C.
• Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
• Pepin, B., Choppin, J., Ruthven, K., & Sinclair, N. (2017). Digital curriculum resources in mathematics education: Foundations for change. ZDM, 49(5), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0879-z
• Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curriculum. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
• Remillard, J. T. (2016). Keeping an Eye on the Teacher in the Digital Curriculum Race. In M. Bates, & Z. Usiskin, (Eds.), Digital Curricula in School Mathematics (pp. 195-204). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
• Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., & Gallagher, L. P. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 833-878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210367426
• Roth McDuffie, A., & Mather, M. (2009). Middle school mathematics teachers’ use of curricular reasoning in a collaborative professional development project. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 302-320). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Schoen, H. L., Cebulla, K. J., Finn, K. F., & Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a Standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(3), 228-259. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034779
• Sleep, L., & Eskelson, S. L. (2012). MKT and curriculum materials are only part of the story: Insights from a lesson on fractions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 537-558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.716977
• Son, J. W., & Kim, O. K. (2015). Teachers’ selection and enactment of mathematical problems from textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(4), 491–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0148-9
• Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663-693. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361210
• Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., Carothers, J., & Myers, K. (2018). The preparation experiences of elementary mathematics specialists: Examining influences on beliefs, content knowledge, and teaching practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(2), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-016-9354-y
• Tarr, J. E., Grouws, D. A., Chavez, O., & Soria, V. M. (2013). The effects of content organization and curriculum implementation on mathematics learning in secondary high school courses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 683-729. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.4.0683
• US Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning, reimagining the role of technology in education: 2016 National Education Technology Plan. Washington, DC.
• Usiskin, Z. (2013). Studying textbooks in an information age—A United States perspective. ZDM, 45(5), 713-723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0514-6
• Webel, C., Conner, K. A., Sheffel, C., Tarr, J. E., & Austin, C. (2017). Elementary mathematics specialists in “departmentalized” teaching assignments: Affordances and constraints. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 196-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.006
• Webel, C., Krupa, E. E., & McManus, J. (2015). Teachers’ evaluations and use of web-based curriculum resources in relation to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(2), 49.
• Webel, C., Tarr, J., Austin, C., Yeo, S., Sheffel, C., Dong, N., Reys, B., & Engledowl, C. (2018). Elementary mathematics specialists and their peers: Comparing beliefs, knowledge, and instructional practices. Paper presented at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association.
• Webel, C., Tarr, J., Austin, C., Yeo, S., Sheffel, C., Dong, N., Reys, B., & Engledowl, C. (2018). Elementary mathematics specialists and their peers: Comparing beliefs, knowledge, and instructional practices [Paper presentation]. The 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association.
• Weis, A. M., & Banilower, E. R. (2014). 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education: Public release datasets user manual. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
• Yeo, S. (2018). Investigating spatial and temporal reasoning of elementary students through gamified mathematics software. In T. E. Hodges, G. J. Roy, & A. M. Tyminski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.1271-1274). Greenville, SC.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.