Does the instruction in Math
65, Math 76, and Math 87 provide an opportunity for students to learn the
benchmark ideas and skills?Numerous sightings were analyzed to determine the
instructional criteria ratings for TYPICAL SIGHTING CHART (Adobe PDF document) The graph below depicts major strengths and weaknesses in the overall instructional
guidance provided by Math 65, Math 76, and Math 87 received on each of
the 24 instructional criteria, across all six of the benchmarks used for the evaluation.INSTRUCTION HIGHLIGHTS CHART (Adobe PDF document) Overall, analysts rated (Note: The teacher’s edition for these textbooks is identical to the student edition, with the addition of answers to exercises and general introductory statements at the beginning of each book. There is no instructional guidance for teachers included in the teacher’s edition.)
This material is organized by lessons and has no units or chapters. Most lessons open with a brief statement related to the direction of the lesson or what students will do in the lesson. There is rarely commentary for the students or the teacher on how to set up the lesson and almost no information given that would help students to see a relationship between this lesson and lessons in the past or future. Because the presentation of a skill or concept is very systematically sequenced within a lesson or part of a lesson, one can infer the rationale for the sequence of activities, although there is none stated. In some lessons, two unrelated ideas are presented back-to-back, with no rationale for their juxtaposition. Skills and concepts are sequenced in the sense that, somewhere in the text, students may encounter the next step or level of an idea.
While there is an occasional reference to prerequisite knowledge, the references are neither consistent nor explicit. In the instances where prerequisite knowledge is identified, the reference is made in the opening narrative that mentions skills that are taught in earlier lessons. The lessons often begin a new skill or procedure without reference to earlier work. There are warm-up activities at the beginning of lessons that provide practice for upcoming skills, but they are not identified as such. There is no guidance for teachers in identifying or addressing student difficulties.
The experiences provided are mainly pencil and paper activities. The material uses a few different contexts such as calculators and fraction pieces, and in grade 6 there are three lessons using fraction manipulatives. In grade 7, students put together a flexible model and later work with the paper and pencil measurements. A lesson in grade 7 on volume of rectangular solids uses a variety of drawings and equations that are right on target with the benchmark, but there is no suggestion that students actually use sugar cubes, as referenced, to build a figure. For the algebra graphs and algebra equations concepts, no variety of contexts is offered. Most firsthand experiences are found in the supplementary materials where students are given a few opportunities to do measurements, work with paper models of figures, collect data, and construct graphs.
There is rarely a justification of the mathematics used in any exercises, activities, or
procedures in this material. Terms and procedures are introduced at an easy pace and are
comprehensible, but they are presented without the context of an activity and without
appropriate application. Representations of number benchmarks are accurate and easy to
understand, but they are limited and show no variety. Graphs are sometimes misleading or
unclear. Charts are sometimes used to identify connections, such as a
fraction-decimal-percent equivalents chart in grade 7, but there is no attempt to engage
students in making connections. The material demonstrates procedures and includes a brief
commentary. Modeling takes the form of illustrations at the beginning of the lesson. For
students who can pick up an idea or procedure the first time they see it, the material is
clear and understandable.
Instructional Category V
There are occasional opportunities for students to represent their understanding of an idea through a written description. Supplementary material entitled "Writing About Mathematics" is available "…to allow for students’ written expression across the mathematics curriculum," but the tasks do not ask students to express, clarify, or represent their ideas in any way. Instead, students are asked questions that are similar to the practice exercises and are told to write out the descriptions of how to solve the problems. There is no evidence in any of the materials of opportunities in which students are engaged in monitoring their progress toward any of the benchmarks analyzed. They are not asked to think about their ideas nor given the opportunity to revise initial ideas based on what they have learned.
Instructional Category VI
The items in Practice and Problem Sets sections, and in the tests, are matched to the topic of the benchmarks rather than the central ideas and skills. There are no non-routine items or problems that test students' mathematical understanding or application of the benchmarks. Practice at the end of each lesson is not included as an embedded assessment strategy to monitor students’ understanding or to provide suggestions about instructional decisions. The only reference to following up student performance is in the introduction in grade 8 where teachers are advised to use the supplemental practice problems in the back of the book for remediation of students scoring below 80% on the tests.
Instructional Category VII
There is no math content help for teachers; however, teachers with limited understanding can likely work through the material. There are no opportunities for students to express curiosity or creativity and no places in which students are encouraged to ask questions. The only "challenge" referenced is a competitive race to solve short answer warm-up problems. The material easily avoids stereotypes and language that may be objectionable by making few references to real life situations and applications. The material does suggest remediation for addressing students with special needs, including those who score below 80% on tests. However, this remediation means doing more of the same kinds of problems they have been doing with each lesson. There are no alternative formats suggested for instruction and assessment, and no suggestions as to how to modify activities as needed. |