Mathematically Correct
Algebra 1 Reviews

Comparative Summary

The table below presents the overall evaluations graphically, as well as letter grades assigned to the relative rankings of the overall evaluations. The legend beneath the table identifies the label used for each text.

Texts receiving an "A" grade are rated as adequate to support student achievement at generally high levels.

Texts receiving a "B" grade are rated as adequate to support student achievement at moderate levels.

Texts receiving a "C" grade are likely to be of lessor quality and of questionable ability to support student achievement at moderate levels.

Overall Evaluation
Text Grade Score
AW F
Cord D+
Focus D+
Foerster A
Glencoe B
Heath B
HRW C
McDougal D
Prentice C
Structure A
SW C
UCSMP C

Legend

Two-Factor Summary Plot

A factor-analytic technique was employed to reduce major topic ratings to a two-dimensional structure accounting for the majority of the variance of major topic ratings. The primary factor, called Mathematical Depth, was strongly defined by the majority of rating dimensions - those that relate to student work and to the quality of the presentation, its clarity, the examples, and the use of proof. The secondary factor was called Analytic Focus and was strongly defined by an emphasis on analytic approaches and appropriateness of technology.

Ratings for each text on each major topic were then scored onto these factors, and these scores were averaged across topics for each text to yield the graph below. The legend above identifies the texts in the graph.1

Texts toward the top tend to have greater coverage of mathematical content in greater depth with clearer and more informative examples. Texts toward the bottom tend to skip on content and treat subjects to a more shallow level with little treatment of more difficult problems.

Texts listed toward the right tend to emphasis analytical approaches and avoid excessive use of calculators. Texts listed toward the left tend to de-emphasis analytical approaches and make more extensive use of calculators.

Leading texts thus appear near the top and to the right. Two texts - Foerster and Structure and Method - stand out as leaders on both dimensions. The next two texts might be considered adequate and offering a choice of style. Interestingly, the Glencoe text shows up higher on the Mathematical Depth dimension than the Heath text, although the overall ratings were in the reverse ranking. This is a function of the somewhat greater difficulty levels in the Glencoe text and somewhat greater emphasis on proof and derivation. The Heath text, on the other hand, has a more analytic focus.

Conclusions from Comparisons

While the two graphic summaries above provide only limited information, they are sufficient to show that there is a great range of adequacy among the texts reviewed.

The comparisons underscore the fact that most of the texts reviewed were not rated highly. This means that districts and schools need to give very careful consideration to their textbook selections as they are at risk of limiting student achievement unnecessarily.

Finally, the factor analytic summary shows some qualitative distinction beyond the overall evaluations. Greater detail is available in the individual textbook evaluations, but the finding suggests that there is some room for stylistic preference between the two textbooks earning a "B" grade.

Note 1: As books are added, the factor structure changes slightly for all books in the graph.

<--- prior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . next --->