What Can We Learn from Textbook Analysis?

As a fundamental resource, textbooks have the potential to shape the way we teach and learn mathematics. While a growing body of textbook analysis studies has sought better ways to improve students’ mathematics achievement, no meta-analysis has yet summarized those studies and their methods. This chapter reviews international comparative studies that analyzed learning opportunities presented in mathematics textbooks in the USA and five high-achieving Asian education systems. We summarize what research studies say about learning opportunities presented in textbooks in connection to the theoretical frameworks used, and their plausible relationship with students’ mathematics achievement. Following this description and analysis, we raise several questions and issues for mathematics education researchers to discuss, to promote a critical examination of what can be learned from the content of textbooks in other countries.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 106.99 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 137.14 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 137.14 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Mathematics Education Research: Impact on Classroom Practices

A Critical Review of Mathematics Education Research in Korea: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions

Recent advances in mathematics textbook research and development: an overview

References

• Bos, K., & Kuiper, W. (1999). Modelling TIMSS data in a European comparative perspective: Exploring influencing factors on achievement in mathematics in Grade 8. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(5), 157–179. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cai, J. (2010). Evaluation of mathematics education programs. In E. Baker, B. McGraw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 2, pp. 653–659). Oxford: Elsevier. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Cai, J., & Cirillo, M. (2014). What do we know about reasoning and proving? Opportunities and missed opportunities from curriculum analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 132–140. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cai, J., Ding, M., & Wang, T. (2014). How do exemplary Chinese and U.S. mathematics teachers view instructional coherence? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 265–280. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cai, J., & Howson, A. G. (2013). Toward an international mathematics curriculum. In M. A. Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & K. S. F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education research (pp. 949–978). New York: Springer. Google Scholar
• Cai, J., Mok, I., Reedy, V., & Stacey, K. (2016). International comparative studies in mathematics: Lessons for improving students’ learning. New York, NY: Springer. BookGoogle Scholar
• Cai, J., Ni, Y., & Lester, F. K. (2011). Curricular effect on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Findings from two longitudinal studies in China and the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 63–64. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cai, J., & Wang, T. (2010). Conceptions of effective mathematics teaching within a cultural context: Perspectives of teachers from China and the United States. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 265–287. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cai, J., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., Wang, C., & Nie, B. (2011). Longitudinal investigation of the curriculum effect: An analysis of student learning outcomes from the LieCal Project. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 117–136. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Carter, J., Li, Y., & Ferrucci, B. J. (1997). A comparison of how textbooks present integer addition and subtraction in PRC and USA. The Mathematics Educator, 2(2), 197–209. Google Scholar
• Charalambous, C., Delaney, S., Hsu, H., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 117–151. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Creemers, B. P. M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell. Google Scholar
• Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM-International Journal of Mathematics Education, 45(2), 633–645. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Freeman, D. T., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 343–356. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fuson, K. C., Stigler, J. W., & Bartsch, K. (1988). Grade placement of addition and subtraction topics in Japan, Mainland China, the Soviet Union, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 449–456. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2007). From intended curriculum to written curriculum: Examining the “voice” of a mathematics textbook. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(4), 344–369. Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
• Kim, R. Y. (2012). The quality of non-textual elements in mathematics textbooks: An exploratory comparison between South Korea and the United States. ZDM-International Journal of Mathematics Education, 44(2), 175–187. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kupari, P. (2006). Student and school factors affecting Finnish mathematics achievement: Results from TIMSS 1999 data. Contexts of learning mathematics and science, Lessons learned from TIMSS, 127–140. Google Scholar
• Li, Y. (2002). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 234–241. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Li, Y. (2007). Curriculum and culture: An exploratory examination of mathematics curriculum materials in their system and cultural contexts. The Mathematics Educator, 10(1), 21–38. Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Chen, X., & An, S. (2009). Conceptualizing and organizing content for teaching and learning in selected Chinese, Japanese and US mathematics textbooks: The case of fraction division. ZDM-International Journal of Mathematics Education, 41(6), 809–826. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Li, Y. (2014). Learning about and improving teacher preparation for teaching mathematics from an international perspective. In S. Bl­meke, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Kaiser & W. H. Schmidt (Eds.). International perspectives on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn. (pp. 49–57). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
• Mesa, V. (2004). Characterizing practices associated with functions in middle school textbooks: An empirical approach. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 255–286. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards. Reston, VA: Author. Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Google Scholar
• Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2007). Could elementary mathematics textbooks help give attention to reasons in the classroom? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(1), 69–84. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• O’Keeffe, L., & O’Donoghue, J. (2015). A role for language analysis in mathematics textbook analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(3), 605–630. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Papanastasiou, C. (2008). A residual analysis of effective schools and effective teaching in mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 24–30. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.. Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., & Holliday, G. (2003). Assessing the impact of Standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 74–95. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. A., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M., & Houang, R. T. (1999). Facing the Consequences: Using TIMSS for a Closer Look at US Mathematics and Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Senk, S., & Thompson, D. (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
• Silver, E. (2009). Cross-national comparisons of mathematics curriculum materials: What might we learn? ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 827–832. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Son, J., & Kim, O. (2015). Teachers’ selection and enactment of mathematical problems from textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(4), 491–518. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Son, J., & Senk, S. (2010). How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 117–142. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Son, J., & Hu, Q. (2016). The initial treatment of the concept of function in selected secondary mathematics textbooks in the US and China. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(4), 503–530. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. ArticleGoogle 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: Kluwer. BookGoogle Scholar
• Wagemaker, H. (2003). IEA: International studies, impact and transition. Retrieved September 24, 2015 from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/IRC2004/Wagemaker.pdf.
• Watanabe, T. (2003). Teaching multiplication: An analysis of elementary school mathematics teachers’ manuals from Japan and the United States. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 111–125. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Webb, N. L. (1999). Research monograph No. 18. Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Google Scholar
• Webb, N. L. (2002). An Analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessments for three states. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA. Google Scholar

Appendix: Surveyed Textbook Analysis Articles

• Alajmi, A. H. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fractions? A review of mathematics textbooks in the USA, Japan, and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 239–261. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Boonlerts, S., & Inprasitha, M. (2013). The textbook analysis on multiplication: The case of Japan, Singapore and Thailand. Creative Education, 4(4), 259. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cai, J., Lo, J. J., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Intended treatments of arithmetic average in US and Asian school mathematics textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 102(8), 391–404. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Carter, J., Li, Y., & Ferrucci, B. J. (1997). A comparison of how textbooks present integer addition and subtraction in PRC and USA. The Mathematics Educator, 2(2), 197–209. Google Scholar
• Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H. Y., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 117–151. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cheng, Q., & Wang, J. (2012). Curriculum opportunities for number sense development: A comparison of first-grade textbooks in China and the United States. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Google Scholar
• Choi, K. M., & Park, H. J. (2013). A comparative analysis of geometry education on curriculum standards, textbook structure, and textbook items between the US and Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(4), 379–391. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ding, M., & Li, X. (2010). A comparative analysis of the distributive property in US and Chinese elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 146–180. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fuson, K. C., Stigler, J. W., & Bartsch, K. (1988). Grade placement of addition and subtraction topics in Japan, mainland China, the Soviet Union, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(5), 449–456. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Han, S., Rosli, R., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2011). The textbook analysis on probability: The case of Korea, Malaysia and U.S. textbooks. Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education Series D, 15(2), 127–140. Google Scholar
• Hong, D. S., & Choi, K. M. (2014). A comparison of Korean and American secondary school textbooks: The case of quadratic equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 241–263. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kang, H. J. (2014). A cross-national comparative study of first- and fourth-grade math textbooks between Korea and the United States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 16(1–2), S91. Google Scholar
• Kim, R. Y. (2012). The quality of non-textual elements in mathematics textbooks: An exploratory comparison between South Korea and the United States. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44(2), 175–187. Google Scholar
• Li, X., Ding, M., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Sources of differences in children’s understandings of mathematical equality: Comparative analysis of teacher guides and student texts in China and the United States. Cognition and Instruction, 26(2), 195–217. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 234–241. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Li, Y. (2007a). Curriculum & cognition: A study on math problems. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 11(2), 86. Google Scholar
• Li, Y. (2007b). Curriculum and culture: An exploratory examination of mathematics curriculum materials in their system and cultural contexts. The Mathematics Educator, 10(1), 21–38. Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Chen, X., & An, S. (2009). Conceptualizing and organizing content for teaching and learning in selected Chinese, Japanese and US mathematics textbooks: The case of fraction division. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41(6), 809–826. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., Sims, V., & Tajika, H. (1995). Brief note: A comparison of how textbooks teach mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 443–460. Google Scholar
• 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. Google Scholar
• Son, J. W. (2012). A cross-national comparison of reform curricula in Korea and the US in terms of cognitive complexity: The case of fraction addition and subtraction. ZDM-International Journal of Mathematics Education, 44(2), 161–174. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Son, J. W., & Senk, S. L. (2010). How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 117–142. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Sun, X. (2011). “Variation problems” and their roles in the topic of fraction division in Chinese mathematics textbook examples. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(1), 65–85. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Sun, Y., & Kulm, G. (2010). A comparison of US and Chinese middle grades textbook development of fraction concepts. The Mathematics Educator, 12(2), 51–62. Google Scholar
• Watanabe, T. (2003). Teaching multiplication: An analysis of elementary school mathematics teachers’ manuals from Japan and the United States. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 111–125. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Xin, Y. P. (2007). Word problem solving tasks in textbooks and their relation to student performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 347–360. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Xin, Y. P., Liu, J., & Zheng, X. (2011). A cross-cultural lesson comparison on teaching the connection between multiplication and division. School Science and Mathematics, 111(7), 354–367. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Yan, Z., & Lianghuo, F. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(4), 609–626. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Yang, D. C., Reys, R. E., & Wu, L. L. (2010). Comparing the development of fractions in the fifth-and sixth-graders’ textbooks of Singapore, Taiwan, and the USA. School Science and Mathematics, 110(3), 118–127. ArticleGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Learning and Instruction, University at Buffalo—The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA Ji-Won Son & Jeri Diletti