You are here:

NCAC: Research & Solutions: Curriculum: Informal Survey of Textbooks

Informal Survey of Textbooks

Conducted by Kathy O'Connell and Roxanne Ruzic

Goals

d

We analyzed a sample of the teacher's editions for programs across publishers, grade levels, and subject matter, to determine:

• What curriculum adaptations and enhancements to accommodate different learners publishers describe in the front matter of their materials.
• What curriculum adaptations and enhancements to accommodate different learners are included in the materials.

Sample

We examined teacher's editions in the following levels and content areas:

• Elementary reading
• Elementary mathematics
• Secondary American history
• Secondary biology

The teacher's editions were from major textbook publishers, all with the most recent copyright available to us ensure comparability based on current state standards.

We were interested in comparing publishers' perspective on effective curriculum-related supports to the perspectives of teachers and researchers on this topic. Our intent was to determine the range of offerings of publishers, not to cite relative merits of each publisher's approach.

Methods

We examined both the frontmatter and the content in body of the most recent copyright of the teachers' edition available to us in each of four content areas. We compared what the publisher said they did to accommodate different kinds of learners in the frontmatter, and what the publisher included in the body of the text to accommodate different kinds of learners. In each case, we noted which populations each publisher addressed as well as what kinds of materials they provided (core activities or additional materials, print materials or computer, audio, videos, etc.). We also noted the labels used to identify activities or accommodations for different learners and the frequency with which the accommodations or labels were included.

Summary

It is difficult to make generalizations about the supports provided by particular publishers based on information in this survey. In a publishing house, different groups of individuals work on different texts. As was evident in the comparison of secondary history and biology, a publisher that provided the most support for teachers with diverse classrooms in one subject were sometimes the same publisher that provided the least support in another subject. However, all materials and suggestions for activities or modification are referenced in the teacher's editions only. Any adaptation or support depends on the teacher to provide the resource to the student.

Some other observations follow:

• Resources for similar populations were addressed by all, however the terminology varied:

  • Extra support/ below level learners
  • Challenge/ gifted and talented
  • Second language/ ESL/bilingual

• Only one publisher labeled activities, not students:

  • Language development
  • Reading support
  • Cultural connections

• Suggestions for incorporating students with various characteristics into the classroom usually took the form of a page or two of general suggestions in the frontmatter, divorced from the specific activities and resources in the text itself. Rarely was there information about how to incorporate a specific activity in a diverse classroom.

• While some publishers provide resources that can be useful for different populations, e.g., technology, most did not label these resources as such.

• Some publishers mentioned certain populations and support in the frontmatter of a given textbook, only to provide resources for other populations (or no resources at all) in the textbook itself.

• Those publishers that did provide support for various populations often did so in the following ways:

  • Activity modifications or adaptations of existing activities
  • Additional activities
  • Additional materials, e.g., audio cassettes, leveled libraries, duplicating masters, CDs or videos

Within a content area across publishers, similar types of support were included yet across content areas, different types of supports were included, possibly due to state guidelines which influenced the program. Most often each type of material offered was designated for a specific population, e.g., special activities for students with vision impairments.

The few publishers that did include and label activities as appropriate for more than one population often (perhaps unintentionally) made assumptions about the groups. For instance, in several texts, no activities listed as appropriate for students acquiring English were ever at a high, gifted, or challenge level.