| In this study, two generic methods of textbook assessment were evaluated by classroom teachers using middle school level (grades 6-8) social studies textbooks. Social studies materials were used as a matter of convenience to the school district involved; the printed texts of any discipline might have been used.; The purposes of the study were to determine which of two textbook evaluation methods would provide more information for the classroom teacher in matching student and text, and which of two textbook assessment methods would provide more professional development for educators who evaluate textbooks, in the opinion of the teacher-subjects involved.; The study population, n = 6, were five male and one female middle school (grades 6-8) classroom teachers in the social studies discipline. The volunteer subjects' years of teaching experience ranged from three to fifteen.; Ths subjects collaborated on a statement of purpose, responded individually to a pre-textbook assessment interview, assessed four social studies texts of their own choosing using the single-step county method (PI), assessed four social studies texts of their own choosing using the Materials Analysis Revised Summary (PII), and assessed two social studies texts using both assessment methods (PI and PII). The subjects then responded individually to a post-textbook assessment interview, comparing the assessment procedures. The researcher analyzed the post-assessment comparison data by the non-parametric Sign Test.; The results of the study suggest that the subjects prefer a multi-stage, more complex textbook evaluation method over a more quickly-done but less informative method. The respondents also indicated the superiority, in their opinion, of the contribution to their professional skills of the more complex approach. |
