DIOCESE OF
Name of Publisher: EMC/PARADIGM PUBLISHING
Subject Area: LITERATURE
Title of Textbook or Series: LITERATURE AND THE
LANGUAGE ARTS EXPLORING LITERATURE THE EMC MASTERPIECE SERIES
Grade Levels: Copyright: Edition: 2000
RATING KEY:
4-Superior 3-Good 2-Fair
1-Poor 0-Feature Not Present
NA- Not Applicable
OVERVIEW: The EMC
MASTERPIECE SERIES is a comprehensive literature program including all
necessary components to meet the diocesan standards. In addition to the literature textbook, there
are numerous supplementary resources.
For a list of program components, visit the website at www.emcp.com.
CONTENT
A. ALIGNMENT WITH
CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS RATING: 3.4
Content must align with the diocesan
standards.
Comments: The selections and activities offer many
opportunities to practice the skills listed in the diocesan standards.
B. LEVEL OF
TREATMENT RATING:
1.5
The level of complexity or difficulty of content must be appropriate
for the standards, grade level, and student abilities.
Comments: The content was aligned with the
objectives stated in the series; however, there were not enough opportunities
for re-teaching and practice. The content was challenging and geared towards
more advanced students. Average or below average students would be frustrated
by many of the exercises. There is more material than could be covered in a
school year.
C. EXPERTISE FOR CONTENT DEVELOPMENT RATING: 4.0 Expertise in the content
area and in education of the intended students must be reflected in the
authors, reviewers, and sources.
Comments: The authors and consultants appear to
have the necessary expertise.
D. ACCURACY
OF CONTENT RATING:
4.0
Content must be accurate in historical
context and contemporary facts and concepts.
Comments: There were no obvious or glaring errors
in historical content or facts and concepts.
E. CURRENTNESS OF CONTENT RATING: 4.0
Content must be up-to-date for the academic discipline and the context
in which the content is presented.
Comments: Visuals were attractive and interesting.
F. AUTHENTICITY OF CONTENT RATING: 3.2
Content should include problem-centered
connections to life in a context that is meaningful to the ` students.
Comments: There were suggestions for
interdisciplinary and cross-curricular connections and suggestions for
integrating literature, grammar, writing, and spelling.
G. MULTICULTURAL
REPRESENTATION RATING: 4.0
Portrayal
of gender, ethnicity, age, work situations, and social groups must include
multicultural fairness and advocacy.
Comments: The selections represent authors and
content reflecting cultural and ethnic diversity.
H. HUMANITY
AND COMPASSION RATING: 4.0
Portrayal of the appropriate care and treatment of people and animals
must include compassion, sympathy, and consideration of their needs.
Comments: The content seemed to conform to Catholic
beliefs and values.
TOTAL
CONTENT RATING: 2.9
PRESENTATION
A. COMPREHENSIVENESS
OF STUDENT AND TEACHER RESOURCES RATING: 2.8
Resources must be complete enough to address the targeted learning
outcomes without requiring the teacher to prepare additional teaching materials
for the course.
STUDENT
RESOURCES Individual
Rating: 3.0
Comments: Many of the questions, activities,
assignments, and tests were challenging, geared toward advanced students. The
exercises were repetitive and required a lot of writing. There were many guided
response questions throughout the selections but no annotations explaining the
author’s use of literary elements. There were many interesting suggestions for
student publishing and presenting of writing projects.
TEACHER
RESOURCES Individual
Rating: 2.5
Comments: There didn’t appear to be any activities
for Limited English Proficient Students. The Scope and Sequence needs to be
condensed so that it fits on two or three pages. Although there are numerous
resources, they are repetitive and similar. There is not a lot of variety in
terms of assignments, activities, and suggestions.
B. ALIGNMENT
OF INSTRUCTIONAL COMPONENTS RATING:
4.0
All components of the instructional package must align with each
other, as well as with the curriculum.
Comments: There are many opportunities for
literature response. The various components are integrated and interdependent.
C. ORGANIZATION
OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS RATING:
3.2
The structure and format of the materials must have enough order and
clarity to allow students and teachers to access content and explicitly
identify ideas and sequences.
Comments: The program is well organized and
consistent.
D. READABILITY
OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS RATING: 2.0
Narrative and visuals should engage students
in reading or listening.
Comments: The visuals accompanying the selections
are beautiful and stimulating. There are, however, review pages and some other
pages that have a brown background that makes the text difficult to read and is
unappealing. The selections are challenging and the questions and activities in
the resource books are very difficult, requiring a high level of critical
thinking and maturity. They are not developmentally appropriate for the average
or below average student or for students with learning disabilities.
E. PACING
OF CONTENT RATING: 2.5
The amount of content presented at one time or the pace at which it is
presented must be of a size or rate that allows students to perceive and
understand it
Comments: There is an overwhelming amount of work
and activities for each selection.
F. EASE OF
USE OF MATERIALS RATING: 2.5
Both print and other media formats of instructional materials must be
easy to use and replace and be durable enough for multiple uses over time.
Comments: The program does include writing
software, a test generator, an audiocassette and CD audio library, supplemental
novels and plays, and a teacher’s edition on CD-ROM.
LEARNING
A. MOTIVATIONAL
STRATEGIES RATING: 2.7
Instructional materials must include
features to maintain learner motivation.
Comments: In general the text is colorful and
appealing. The activities for each selection provided in the resource books,
however, are repetitive and consist of pages and pages of questions and
answers. There is little variety and the activities do not meet the needs of
today’s media oriented students. There is no recognition of multiple
intelligences
B. TEACHING
A FEW “BIG IDEAS” RATING: 2.0
Instructional materials should thoroughly
teach a few important ideas, concepts, or themes.
Comments: There is more material than can be
covered in the typical school year.
C. EXPLICIT
INSTRUCTION RATING: 3.8
Instructional materials must contain clear
statements of information and outcomes.
Comments: There are some excellent resources for
teaching the writing process: prompts, instructions, models, graphic
organizers, rubrics, etc.
D. GUIDANCE
AND SUPPORT RATING: 3.4
Instructional materials must include guidance and support to help
students safely and successfully become more independent learners and thinkers.
Comments: There are many opportunities for the
students to use critical thinking skills. There are not sufficient adaptations
for developmental differences and varying learning styles.
E. ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION RATING: 2.7
Instructional materials must engage the physical and mental activity
of students during the learning process.
Comments: There are many opportunities for peer
conferencing. However, overall the activities are not engaging-do not allow the
students to explore their other intelligences.
F. TARGETED
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES RATING: 2.0
Instructional
materials should include the strategies known to be successful for teaching the learning outcomes targeted in
the curriculum requirements.
Comments: The activities at the end of each
selection and in the resource book are the same for each selection or follow a
similar format. The strategies used seem to reflect a more traditional approach
to teaching literature. They do not seem to reflect current theories especially
those that encourage the use of multiple intelligences and an awareness of the
struggling learner or students with learning disabilities.
G. TARGETED
ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES RATING: 3.4
Instructional materials should include assessment strategies known to
be successful in determining how well students have achieved the learning
outcomes targeted in the curriculum requirements.
Comments: The assessment strategies match the
outcomes targeted by this series. There are numerous rubrics. Much of the
assessment is short answer. There are not as many opportunities for alternative
assessment or performance based assessment.
TOTAL
LEARNING RATING: 2.9
CUMULATIVE
RATING TOTAL: 2.9
STRENGTHS:
This program offers a variety of literature with an emphasis on more
traditional, classical selections. There is a balance, however, with numerous
modern selections representing ethnic and cultural diversity. There are many
resources available and technology. There is an emphasis on critical thinking
and higher level thinking skills. The program seems to reflect a return to a
more traditional approach to the teaching of literature.
CONCERNS:
The series is very challenging and seems geared
towards the advanced or gifted student. Many of the activities in the resource
books would be very difficult for the average or below average student. There
do not seem to be enough accommodations for students with learning disabilities
and there does not seem to be a variety of activities. There is no recognition
of/or activities for multiple intelligences.
OVERALL
IMPRESSION: This program is very traditional and
structured. There is much repetition in activities. This program would work
best in a school with highly motivated, academically gifted students with
well-developed critical thinking skills.