A Comparative Analysis of Third-Grade Mathematics Textbooks Before and After the 2000 NCTM Standards

Abstract

We previously conducted a curriculum analysis of third-grade mathematics textbooks aimed at investigating the extent to which teaching the recommended methods for problem solving adhered to the 2000 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards and instructional design criteria. In this article, we extend the previous findings by comparing the teaching of problem solving presented in the same textbooks published after the 2000 NCTM Standards to that in older editions published before the Standards were in effect. Results indicated that the changes in textbooks varied with regard to meeting the different Standards. However, results for instructional design criteria indicated more consistent changes, favoring the textbook series published after 2000. Additional findings and implications for practice are discussed.

Developing Representational Ability in Mathematics for Students With Learning Disabilities

“…In addition, textbooks should include sufficient, varied, and relevant opportunities for use and practice to promote skilled application and performance (Sood & Jitendra, 2007; Woodward & Montague, 2002). For developing representational ability, this would involve not only exposure to various representations within the content to be learned but also opportunities to generate representations, select among mathematical representations, and apply a representation provided to solve various mathematical tasks (Jitendra, Deatline-Buchman, & Sczesniak, 2005).…”

“…In general, it has been found that textbooks, regardless of instructional perspective, typically do not adequately support learners with disabilities (Bryant et al, 2008; Carnine et al, 1997; Jitendra et al, 1996; Jitendra, Deatline-Buchman, et al, 2005; Jitendra, Griffin, et al, 2005; Jitendra et al, 1999; Sood & Jitendra, 2007). Use of key instructional components such as explicit instruction and adequate opportunities for practice are lacking.…”

“…In studies that either entirely or in part focused on representations, the findings are typically more global in nature such as whether representations were included, type and number of representations students are to use, or if the representations were relevant to the mathematics content or were illustrations (Bryant et al, 2008; Carnine et al, 1997; Jitendra et al, 1996; Jitendra, Deatline-Buchman, et al, 2005; Jitendra, Griffin, et al, 2005; Jitendra et al, 1999; Mayer, Sims, & Tajika, 1995; Samimy & Liu, 1997; Sood & Jitendra, 2007). Findings specific to the use of representations to develop representational ability are much more limited.…”

“…This finding, however, relates primarily to manipulatives. Second, although expectations for students to use manipulatives and/or representations have increased over the past 10 years (Bryant et al, 2008), a greater emphasis for student involvement to apply and use representations tends to be restricted primarily to students’ selection among representations provided rather than their own generation of representations (Jitendra, Deatline-Buchman, et al, 2005; Jitendra, Griffin, et al, 2005).…”

An Analysis of Middle School Mathematics Textbooks from the Perspective of Fostering Algebraic Thinking through Generalization

“…While a textbook does not fully reflect what happens in the classroom, it does however show the instructional objectives that can influence students' mathematical knowledge (Dumitraşcu, 2015). All these significant points have led studies to analyze textbooks under various subject areas in the mathematics education literature (Ashcraft & Christy, 1995;Bakılan-Mutu, 2008;Freeman & Porter, 1989;Jitendra, Deatline-Buchman, & Sczesniak, 2005;Kerpiç & Bozkurt, 2011;Tanışlı & Köse, 2011;Taşdemir, 2011;Yeniterzi & Işıksal-Bostan, 2015).…”