This study investigated the extent to which teaching the recommended methods for problem-solving presented in third-grade mathematics textbooks adhered to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards and instructional design criteria. Results indicated that there were more variations than similarities within and across textbooks in meeting the Standards. In terms of the instructional design criteria, most were satisfied in only two textbooks and few discrepancies were evident across the textbooks that were evaluated. For example, instructional design criteria of clarity of objectives, sufficient teaching examples, and nonexamples were met in less than half of the textbooks. Additional findings and implications for practitioners meeting the diverse needs of students with learning problems are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmbrusterB.OstertagJ. (1993). Questions in elementary science and social studies textbooks. In BrittonB. K.WoodwardA.BinkleyM. (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 69–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
BakerJ. M.ZigmondN. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities?Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526.
3.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?Educational Researcher, 25 (9), 6–8, 14.
4.
BransfordJ. D.ZechL.SchwartzD.BarronB.VyeN. (1996). Fostering mathematical thinking in middle school students: Lessons from research: In SternbergR. J.Ben-ZeevT. (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 203–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
BuchananK.HelmanM. (1997). Reforming mathematics instruction for ESL literacy students. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414769. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
6.
BybeeR. W.Ferrini-MundyJ.Loucks-HorsleyS. (1997). National standards and school science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 325–334.
7.
CarlssonG.CohenR. L.ClementsD. H.MalloyC. E.MoseleyL. G.SilbeyR. S. (2002). Mathematics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
CarnineD.JitendraA. K.SilbertJ. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricula materials from a pedagogical perspective: A case study of fractions. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 66–81.
9.
CarnineD.JonesE. D.DixonR. (1994). Mathematics: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, 406–427.
10.
CawleyJ. F.ParmarR. S.YanW. F.MillerJ. H. (1996). Arithmetic computation abilities of students with learning disabilities: Implications for instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 230–237.
11.
ChandlerD. G.BrosnanP. A. (1994). Mathematics textbook changes from before to after 1989. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 16 (4), 1–9.
ChatterjiM. (2002). Models and methods for examining standards-based reforms and accountability initiatives: Have the tools of inquiry answered pressing questions on improving schools?Review of Educational Research, 72, 345–386.
14.
CobbP.BauersfeldH. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19 (6), 2–10.
16.
Council of the Great City Schools. (1996). Becoming the best: Standards and assessment development in the Great City Schools. Washington DC: Author.
17.
CrawfordD. B.SniderV. E. (2000). Effective mathematics instruction: The importance of curriculum. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 122–142.
18.
FennellF.Ferrini-MundyJ.GinsburgH. P.GreenesC.MurphyS. J.TateW. (2001). Mathematics: The Path to Math Success. Parsippany, NJ: Silver-Burdett & Ginn.
19.
FlandersJ. R. (1994). Textbooks, teachers and the SIMS test. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 260–278.
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.BishopN. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 70–84.
21.
GagneR. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: CBS College Publishing.
22.
GandelM. (1997). Making standards matter 1996: An annual fifty-state report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
23.
GarnerR. (1992). Learning from school texts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 53–63.
24.
GehrkeN. J.KnappM. S.SirotnikK. A. (1992). In search of the school curriculum. In GrantG. (Ed.), Review of research in education, (pp. 51–110). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
25.
GerstenR.BakerS. (1998). Real world use of scientific concepts: Integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Exceptional Children, 65, 23–35.
26.
GoldmanS. R.HasselbringT. S., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 198–208.
27.
GoldsmithL. T.MarkJ. (1999). What is a standards-based mathematics curriculum?Educational Leadership, 57, 40–44.
28.
GonzalezJ. E. J.EspinelA. I. G. (1999). Is IQ-achievement discrepancy relevant in the definition of arithmetic learning disabilities?Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 291–301.
29.
GreenesC.LeivaM. A.VogeliB. R. (2002). Mathematics. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
30.
HafnerA. L. (1993). Teaching-method scales and mathematics-class achievement: What works with different outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 71–94.
31.
HiebertJ. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3–19.
32.
HiebertJ.CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.FusonK.HumanP.MurrayH. (1996). Problem-solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 12–21.
33.
Individuals With Disabilities Act. (1999). Final regulations: IDEA Amendments of 1997. Federal Register, 64, 12406.
34.
JitendraA. K.CarnineD.SilbertJ. (1996). Descriptive analysis of fifth grade division instruction in basal mathematics programs: Violations of pedagogy. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 381–403.
35.
JitendraA. K.SalmentoM.HaydtL. (1999). A case study of subtraction analysis in basal mathematics programs: Adherence to important instructional design criteria. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 69–79.
36.
JitendraA. K.XinY. P. (1997). Mathematical word problem-solving instruction for students with disabilities and at risk: A research synthesis. Journal of Special Education, 30, 412–439.
37.
KaganD. M.TippinsD. J. (1991). Helping student teachers attend to student cues. Elementary School Journal, 91, 343–356.
38.
KinzerC. K.RiskoV.VyeN. J.SherwoodR. D. (April, 1988). Macrotexts for enhancing instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
39.
KlausmeierH. J. (1992). Concept learning and concept teaching. Educational Psychologist, 27, 267–286.
40.
LampertM. (1991). Connecting mathematical teaching and learning. In FennemaE.CarpenterT. P.LamonS. J. (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 121–152). Albany: State University of New York Press.
41.
LappanG. (1999). Revitalizing and refocusing our efforts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 568–578.
42.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2002). Perceptions and application of NCTM Standards by special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 68, 325–344.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.ShiahS. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 89–98.
45.
MayerR. E.SimsV.TajikaH. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks teach mathematical problem-solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 443–460.
46.
MillerS. P.ButlerF. M.LeeK. (1998). Validated practices for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities: A review of literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31 (1), 1–24.
47.
MokrosJ. (1994). Math textbooks: Where's the math?Education Digest, 60, 61.
48.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
49.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
50.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: Author.
51.
NoletV.McLaughlinM. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
52.
OrnsteinA. C.LevineD. U. (1993). Foundations of education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
53.
ParmarR. S. (1992). Protocol analysis of strategies used by students with mild disabilities when solving arithmetic word problems. Diagnositique, 17, 227–243.
54.
ParmarR. S.CawleyJ. F.FrazitaR. R. (1996). Problem-solving by students with and without mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 431–450.
55.
ParmarR. S.CawleyJ. F.MillerJ. H. (1994). Differences in mathematics performance between students with learning disabilities and students with mild retardation. Exceptional Children, 60, 549–566.
56.
PorterA. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18 (5), 9–15.
57.
RiveraD. P. (1997). Mathematics education and students with learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 2–19.
58.
SaminyK. K.LiuJ. (1997). A comparative study of selected United States and Japanese first-grade mathematics textbooks. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19 (2), 1–13.
59.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An informal attack on the attack and the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In VossJ.PerkinsD. N.SegalJ. (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 311–343). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
60.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher31 (1), 13–25.
61.
ShutesR.PetersenS. (1994). Seven reasons why textbooks cannot make a curriculum. NASP Bulletin, 78 (565), 11–20.
SteinM.SilbertJ.CarnineD. (1997). Designing effective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
64.
TorgesenJ. K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner. Topics in Learning and Language Disabilities, 2, 45–52.
65.
ValverdeG. A.SchmidtW. H. (1997/1998). Refocusing U.S. math and science education. Issues in Science and Technology, 14, 60–66.
66.
WoodwardJ.MontagueM. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 89–101.
67.
ZentallS. S.FerkisM. A. (1993). Mathematical problem-solving for youth with ADHD, with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 6–18.
