Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Pearson (Digital) Curriculum Opinions Wanted

Our district has bought into a multi-year plan using the digital Pearson Common Core curriculum that includes enVision Math, Write to Learn, Reading Street, My World Social Studies, and Interactive Science at the Elementary level. It moves up to Digits Math, Online Learning Exchange Science & Social Studies, My World History & Geography, and Prentice Hall Literature at the Middle School level.

Does anyone use these programs or have an opinion one way or the other regarding these Pearson products?

My condolences.

Er-- I mean, uh, we've witnessed what Pearson's acquisition has done to curricular quality as a whole with Connections Academy-- it's NOT pretty.

Pearson supports whatever drives to all-digital delivery, btw. The reason is that annual licensing for use (limited time DRM) is far more profitable than textbook sales. Besides, if you control the DRM, there's no way for the school to not buy from you next year if they decide that they'd rather just re-use the same text.

Oh, and they can "bundle" a lot of other slick but pedagogically untested/unsound fluff in there, too, and charge extra for the "innovation."

I have seen and examined (albeit not closely) the Course 3 text from the enVision sequence. It's weak to the point of needing a brain transplant, and that is putting it mildly. It's such a mashup of different disciplines that it's a hopeless cause, IMO.

Inside the cover, even... there's a nifty PLAY! button-- which exhorts students to go to PearsonSchool.com/DimensionM to "download the Mission" and "choose {their} avatar" and finally to "game on!!"

NOT ONE of the fifteen listed textbook reviewers is actually a mathematician, nor, apparently, even an educator in the subject at the post-secondary level. It's difficult to tell, but it seems that none of the three authors who hold PhD's (of the seven) has one in the discipline-- but in "math education" instead.

There are a number of "content consultants" listed, too-- at a quick Google, however, none of THEM have advanced degrees in mathematics, either, and some of them are apparently marketing specialists, or at least have no math specialty whatsoever, though this seems to not be most of them (most apparently are high school teachers, many with a background in test prepping).




With that promising beginning, moving on to the table of contents...



Which, in brief, look like this:

Ch 1. Algebra Integers and Algebraic Expressions

Ch 2. Rational Numbers

Ch 3. Real Numbers and the Coordinate Plane

Ch 4. Applications of Proportions

Ch 5. Applications of Percent

Ch 6. Algebra: Equations and Inequalities

Ch 7. Geometry

Ch 8. Measurement

Ch 9. Using Graphs to Analyze Data

Ch 10. Probability

Ch 11. Algebra: Functions

Ch 12. Algebra: Polynomials and Properties of Exponents.


Ohh, heyyyy-- it's a test-preparation book. Kind of. Well, that explains those consultant names, anyway.

If you're skeptically looking down that list for this (pre-algebra preparation) textbook, and thinking that "wow, this seems a little, um, diconnected and scattered" you'd be right, incidentally. EVERY chapter has almost no connection to the one that precedes it, and not only are there large gaps in concept coverage, there are also wild assumptions about what students are supposed to have learned when entering this course, from what my DD tells me.


Until they adopted this textbook, the number one class that students wanted help with was geometry. Not anymore. THIS stinker is king.


It is a good tool for doing surrealist performance art, though, according to my DD. Because that's certainly what it feels like to students trying to use the textbook to master the material. Like visiting Cirque du Soleil and attempting to learn modern dance.

Basically, if anything has changed since this time, it's been in a direction that has made things exponentially WORSE than before, though the mind boggles, frankly.

___________________________________________________

We've used the older (not Common Core) version of the Literature text, too. It was annoying in that it mostly gave watered down excerpted "readings" from larger works that most GT students would already be familiar with. Or should be, anyway. The supporting materials in that textbook were all over the place and all over the map in terms of quality, too-- it was a bit like a scavenger hunt to locate in-reading questions. On the bright side, those books used to be quite hefty, so no need for strength training if your child is lugging one of those around.

The rep. that spoke to our district was pretty high up the company chain. If I recall correctly, he had a couple Ph.D's and has taught college level math and more. He told us that Pearson would not produce any actual textbooks after 2016, so they are definitely going all out digital.

The catch with most of those people, I've found, is that there is a big difference between having a PhD in the education version of a discipline and in having a regular PhD in the discipline.


I've not encountered the latter in secondary textbook authorships (nevermind promotion) in a very long time.

I'll bet the guy's PhD was in "Math Education" and that he's taught TEACHERS at the college level-- maybe even within a math department, but still, that is not the same thing as knowing the discipline like colleagues that teach math to STEM majors and math graduate students.

Where that kind of thing really shows up, in our own experience, is in assessment. Non-subject experts are just fine with rewriting questions to suit various levels of Bloom's, but without really understanding why they've just made the question ludicrous or worse from a subject standpoint.

My daughter hates digital textbooks. We've tried four different platforms, seven or so formats, and probably a dozen different textbooks in total. All of them are clunky to use relative to a physical textbook, particularly in literature and mathematics, but also in science.

Social studies can be okay in digital format. Like an e-book.

This technology is very definitely not yet ready to replace physical texts, though.

Not even on tablets. The complex/graphics-heavy STEM subjects make them lag-- sometimes badly-- on page-turns and zooms, and lock-ups aren't infrequent with large textbooks in electronic formatting. If you try to click through to citations or definitions, you often discover that navigation is a bit, er-- slippery.

Multimedia embedding is a disaster on every platform we've tried so far, too.

In literature, page-marking and annotations are mostly quite challenging/awkward.



Another note about digital platforms and universal use:

DD and I neither one can use digital media with low-refresh rates or with moving GIF's-- because they promote migraines in both of us. She had one classmate that got them from using digital textbooks, period. So do be wary of that if you have migraineurs in your family.

Our ds' school has only made minimal attempts to integrate digital textbooks at this point with not so great results - mostly due to technical issues such as books not opening across multiple platforms, and there was also an initial concern by ds' teachers re quality of graphics. I can't say I have any opinions on that, since my ds has not yet actually been able to open a digital textbook at home where I could view any of the not-so-great graphics

One other thing I've noted with ds - his school does let the students read books on their iPads for literature studies, and it *might* be my imagination (but after several books I'm thinking it's not just my imagination!)... but I think my ds reads more slowly on his iPad than he does when reading from an actual old-fashioned book. He's a kid who reads really *really* fast - goes through books insanely quickly. I am not sure why it seems to go slower on the iPad, but I've watched him while he's reading - the issue isn't distraction or hanging out at youtube when mom's not paying attention - he just seems to read more slowly, even books he's really really into.

polarbear

Ahhh, yes, working on a computer is the wave of the future. Make sure you don't complain that your child isn't learning, because learning on the computer is how it's going to be.

Watch digits carefully, particularly if you have an intuitive kid who will need to be taught the habit of showing ones work. I would also recommend you purchase an algebra textbook at the local used book store so your kid can use the index to look up "commutative property" for a 30 second refresher instead of turning on the computer, logging into digits (cross your fingers it's not down), find the part on commutative property (which will only be there if the class has already been there in class, but also only if the teacher doesn't "clean up" the site and remove it), then watch a 7.5 minutes of sickening & insulting video for the same information.

My local Half Price Books sells algebra books from the local university and community college for $5.99 each. A bargain.

Polarbear, my DD and I both lose about 5% in speed in digital books, too-- and like your son, both of us are VERY fast readers otherwise.

I think it's the pageturn rate. If you add that up over the course of a book, a difference of 50% in a pageturn really adds up in a hurry.

It gets better if you scale the text size way down (to fit more on a page). Which is a fine solution unless you are over 40. [ahem]

Wow!! You are good! When you mentioned that, I recalled that was exactly what he said he did - he taught teachers at the college level.

We are just beginning this digital journey and I guess I'm hopeful, but I'm also cautious.

The rep. told us that the gifted/advanced students won't be held back and they can move through the program at their own pace. The example he gave was a class that was working on grade 6 curriculum 1st semester, but advanced to grade 7 curriculum for the 2nd semester. The example was not a big jump, but it at least sounds promising. If it works that way and the school will allow it, this will be good for my DD. I assume there is probably a way the school can tweak the program to allow some advancement, but not allow students to just keep going and going until they top out. I just can't see our school allowing a 4th grader to work through the program to a 7th grade level just because the student is capable. I can hear it now, "What will she do in 7th grade if she is already doing all the 7th grade work in the 4th grade?" (it just so happens we have heard that excuse already)

The other thing they explained to us is that in some subjects the students will take a pretest. If they do well on the pretest the program will automatically adjust and weed out some of the annoying repetition. This is another part that will benefit my DD - if it really works that way. Unnecessary repetition is very toxic for DD.

Are these things any of you have noticed at all in working with this type of program?

Nope. We've not seen differentiation in a meaningful way implemented in digits. All that you report as "available" probably still requires the teacher to be sufficiently motivated to set it up.