Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

One-step and multi-step linear equations: a content analysis of five textbook series

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Being able to solve one-step and multi-step linear equations is a hallmark of algebraic proficiency in the United States and abroad. The purpose of this paper is to report on a textbook comparison study regarding the treatment of linear equations in five textbook series that are popular in the United States: Center for Mathematics Education Project Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 (CME), Core-Plus Mathematics Program Courses 1–3 (CPMP), Glencoe Algebra 1 and Algebra 2, Interactive Mathematics Program Years 1–3 (IMP), and University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Algebra and Advanced Algebra (UCSMP). Data are reported for the following curriculum variables: content, cognitive behavior, real-world context, and tools (technology and manipulatives). Sequencing of the content, and links between symbolic and functions-based approaches are discussed. Based on the data presented, what students experience relative to setting up and solving one-step and multi-step linear equations is likely to be markedly different, depending on which textbook is used in their classrooms. Implications for practice and ideas for further research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The first author was a doctoral student of one of the authors of CPMP and therefore did not code this textbook series. In addition, the first author was the cognizant program officer at the US National Science Foundation for the second edition of IMP, and therefore did not code that textbook series.

  2. The diagrams use transparency so lone dots are faint and as they overlap, the image gets darker.

  3. The important point in these pie charts is not the actual numbers, but rather, the visual perception of the differences and/or patterns of the differences in the data.

  4. Recall that for the integrated textbooks (CPMP and IMP), only those units, as identified by the textbook authors, with a strong focus on algebra were coded.

References

  • Benson, J., Cuoco A., D’Amato, N. A., Erman, D., Baccaglini-Frank, A., Golay, A., Gorman, J., Harvey, B., Harvey, W., Hill, C. J., Kerins, B., Kilday, D., Maurer, S., Palma, M., Saul, M., Sword, S., Thomas, B., Ting, A., & Waterman, K. (2009). Center for Mathematics Education Project Algebra 1. [teacher text]. Boston, MA: Pearson.

  • Brown, S. A., Breunlin, R. J., Wiltjer, M. H., Degner, K. M., Eddins, S. K., Edwards, M. T., Metcalf, N. A., Jakucyn, N., & Usiskin, Z. (2008). University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Algebra. (3rd ed.). [teacher text]. Chicago, IL: Wright Group/McGraw-Hill.

  • Cuoco A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., Benson, J., D’Amato, N. A., Erman, D., Harvey, B., Harvey, W., Kerins, B., Kilday, D., Matsuura, R., Maurer, S., Sword, S., Ting, A., & Waterman, K. (2009). Center for Mathematics Education Project Algebra 2. [teacher text]. Boston, MA: Pearson.

  • Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientific research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 765–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 633–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fendel, D., Resek, D., Alper, L., & Fraser, S. (2009–2011). Interactive Mathematics Program Years 1–3 (2nd ed.). [teacher texts]. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.

  • Flanders, J., Lassak, M., Sech, J., Eggerding, M., Karafiol, P. J., McMullin, L., Weisman, N., & Usiskin, Z. (2010). University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Advanced Algebra. (3rd ed.). [teacher text]. Chicago, IL: Wright Group/McGraw-Hill.

  • Floden, R. E. (2002). The measurement of Opportunity to Learn. In A. C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national achievement (pp. 231–266). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garden, R. A., Lie, S., Robitaille, D. F., Angell, C., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V.S., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2006). TIMSS advanced 2008 assessment frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

  • Hirsch, C. R, Fey, J. T., Hart, E. W., Schoen, H. L., & Watkins, A. E. (2008/2009). Core-Plus Mathematics Program Courses 1–3 (2nd ed.). [teacher texts]. New York, NY: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

  • Holliday, B., Luchin, B., Marks, D., Day, R., Cuevas, G. J., Carter, J. A., Casey, R. M., & Hayek, L. M. (2008). Algebra 1 & Algebra 2. [teacher texts]. New York, NY: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

  • Kaput, J. J. (1998). Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by “algebrafying” the K-12 curriculum. In National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council, The nature and role of algebra in the K-14 curriculum (pp. 25–26). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (2004). Algebra: A world of difference. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI Study (pp. 329–346). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching of algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester Jr (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathematica. (Versions 8 & 9). [Software]. Available from Wolfram Research, Inc., 100 Trade Center Drive, Champaign, IL 61820-7237.

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/HSA/REI. Accessed 24 Nov 2013.

  • National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education. 46(5), this issue. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0600-4.

  • St. John, M., Fuller, K. A., Houghton, N., Huntwork, D., & Tambe, P. (2000). High school mathematics curricular decision making: A national study of how schools and districts select and implement new curricula. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Inc.

  • Thompson, D. R., & Senk, S. L. (2003). High school mathematics curriculum reform. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 299–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisconsin Center for Education Research (2007). SEC K-12 mathematics taxonomy. Retrieved from http://seconline.wceruw.org/Reference/K12MathTaxonomy2008.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2009.

  • Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2002). Flux in school algebra: Curricular change, graphing technology, and research on student learning and teacher knowledge. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 725–755). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0901311. We extend deep appreciation to high-school teachers Jennifer Mayer and Tisha Riley for their careful reading of and coding the textbooks, and to Richard Furnas for his expert handling of our large dataset and producing plots to represent the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Mary Ann Huntley & Maria S. Terrell

Authors
  1. Mary Ann Huntley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria S. Terrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Ann Huntley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huntley, M.A., Terrell, M.S. One-step and multi-step linear equations: a content analysis of five textbook series. ZDM Mathematics Education 46, 751–766 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0627-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0627-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation