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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armbruster, B., & Ostertag, J. (1993). Questions in elementary science and social studies textbooks. In B. K., Britton, A. Woodward, & M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 69-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Ashcraft, M. (1985). Is it farfetched that some of us remember our arithmetic facts?Journal of Research in Mathematics Education , 16, 99-105.
3.
Baine, D. (1982). Instructional design for special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
4.
Barron, B., Bransford, J., Kulewicz, S., & Hasselbring, T. (1989, March). Uses of macrocontexts to facilitate mathematical thinking. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco.
5.
Bottge, B.A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 81-92.
6.
Buchanan, K., & Helman, M. (1997). Reforming mathematics instruction for ESL literacy students. ERIC Digest (ED414769). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
7.
Bybee, R.W., Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1997). National standards and school science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics , 97, 325-334.
8.
Camine, D.W. (1980). Preteaching versus concurrent teaching of the component skills of a multiplication algorithm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 375-379.
9.
Carnine, D., Dixon, R., & Silbert, J. (1998). Effective strategies for teaching mathematics . In D. Kameenui & D. Camine (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (pp. 93-112). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
10.
Camine, D., Jitendra, A.K., & Silbert, J. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricula materials from a pedagogical perspective: A case study of fractions. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 66-81.
11.
Carnine, D., Jones, E.D., & Dixon, R. (1994). Mathematics: Educational tools for diverse learners . School Psychology Review, 23, 406-427.
12.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E.J. (1990). Direct instruction reading (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
13.
Case, R. (1975). Gearing the demands of instruction to the developmental capacities of the learner. Review of Educational Research , 45, 59-87.
14.
Cawley, J.F., Parmar, R.S., Yan, W.E., & Miller, J.H. (1996). Arithmetic computation abilities of students with learning disabilities: Implications for instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 230-237.
15.
Chandler, D.G., & Brosnan, P.A. (1994). Mathematics textbook changes from before to after 1989. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 16(4), 1-9.
16.
Chatterji, M. (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.
17.
Collins, M., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1987). Elaborated corrective feedback and the acquisition of reasoning skills: A study of computer-assisted instruction. Exceptional Children, 54, 254-262.
18.
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347-362.
19.
Dempster, F.N. (1991). Synthesis of research on reviews and tests. Educational Leadership, 4(7), 71-76.
20.
Elliot, D.L., & Woodward, A. (1990). Textbooks, curriculum, and social improvement . In D. L. Elliot & A. Woodward (Eds.), Textbooks and schooling in the United States: Eighty-ninth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 222-223). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications . New York: Irvington.
22.
Flanders, J.R. (1994). Textbooks, teachers and the SIMS test. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 260-278.
23.
Gagne, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: CBS College Publishing.
24.
Garner, R. (1992). Learning from school texts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 53-63.
25.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (1998). Real world use of scientific concepts: Integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Exceptional Children, 65, 23-35.
26.
Goldman, S.R., Hasselbring, T.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.
Goldsmith, L.T., & Mark, J. (1999). What is a standards-based mathematics curriculum?Educational Leadership, 57, 40-44.
28.
Hasselbring, T., Goin, L., & Bransford, J. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus onExceptional Children, 20(6), 1-7.
29.
Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards . Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3-19.
30.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21.
31.
Jitendra, A.K., Carnine, D., & Silbert, J. (1996). Descriptive analysis of fifth grade division instruction in basal mathematics programs: Violations of pedagogy. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 6, 381-403.
32.
Jitendra, A.K., Griffin, C., Deatline-Buchman, A., DiPipi, C., Sczesniak, E., Sokol, N., et al. (in press). Adherence to NCTM Standards and instructional design criteria for problem-solving in mathematics textbooks. Exceptional Children.
33.
Jitendra, A.K., Salmento, M., & Haydt, L. (1999). A case study of subtraction analysis in basal mathematics programs: Adherence to important instructional design criteria . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 69-79.
34.
Jones, E.D., Krouse, J.P., Feorene, D., & Salerstein, C.A. (1985). A comparison of concurrent and sequential instruction of four types of verbal math problems. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 25-31.
Kline, F.M.Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1991). Development and validation of feedback routines for instructing students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 191-207.
37.
Lappan, G. (1999). Revitalizing and refocusing our efforts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 568-578.
38.
Leinhardt, G. (1987). Development of an expert explanation: An analysis of a sequence of subtraction lessons. Cognition and Instruction , 4, 225-282.
39.
Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and expert competence. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 52-75.
40.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J.C. (2002). Perceptions and application of NCTM Standards by special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children , 68, 325-344.
41.
Mayer, R.E., Sims, V., & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks teach mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 443-460.
42.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
43.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
44.
Nickerson, R.S. (1985). Understanding. American Journal of Education, 93, 201-239.
45.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M.J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Parmar R.S. (1992). Protocol analysis of strategies used by students with mild disabilities when solving arithmetic word problems. Diagnositique,17, 227-243.
48.
Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9-15.
49.
Prater, M.A. (1993). Teaching concepts: Procedures for the design and delivery of instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 14(5), 51-62.
50.
Resnick, L.B., & Ford, W.W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for instruction . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
51.
Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 262-268.
52.
Saminy, K.K., & Liu, J. (1997). A comparative study of selected United States and Japanese first-grade mathematics textbooks. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19(2), 1-13.
53.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher , 31(1), 13-25.
54.
Shutes, R., & Petersen, S. (1994). Seven reasons why textbooks cannot make a curriculum. NASPBulletin, 78(565), 11-20.
55.
Stefanich, G.P., & Rokusek, T. (1992). An analysis of computational errors in the use of division algorithms by fourth-grade students. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 201-205.
56.
Stein, M., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. (1997). Designing effective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
57.
Swing, S., & Peterson, P. (1988). Elaborative and integrative thought processes in mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology , 80, 54-66.
58.
Trafton, P.R. (1983). Toward more effective, efficient instruction in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 84, 514-530.
59.
Valverde, G.A., & Schmidt, W.H. (1997/1998). Refocusing U. S. math and science education. Issues in Science and Technology, 14, 60-66.
60.
Van De Walle, J. (1994). Elementary school mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Longman .
61.
Van Houten, R. (1993). Rote vs. rules: A comparison of two teaching and correction strategies for teaching basic subtraction facts. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 147-159.
62.
Werts, M.G., Wolery, M., Venn, M.L., Demblowski, D., & Doren, H. (1996). Effects of transition-based teaching with instructive feedback on skill acquisition by children with and without disabilities. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 75-86.
63.
Woodward, J., & Camine, D. (1993). Uses of technology for mathematics assessment and instruction: Reflection on a decade of innovations. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(1), 38-48.
64.
Woodward, J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 89-101.
65.
Zentall S.S., & Ferkis, M.A. (1993). Mathematical problem solving for youth with ADHD, with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 6-18.
