enVisionMath A/G/A

Name: enVisionMath A/G/A
Brand: Savvas Learning Company (f/k/a Pearson)

by Savvas Learning Company (f/k/a Pearson)

MathGrades 9–12

About This Curriculum

<cite index="11-1,11-2">enVision A|G|A is a high school algebra and geometry program where students learn Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 using real-world topics and problem-based learning.</cite>

What makes it unique: <cite index="11-13">enVision A|G|A is the only high grades math program for Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 that combines problem-based learning and visual learning to deepen students' conceptual understanding.</cite>

enVisionMath A/G/A: Project-Based High School Math Curriculum

enVisionMath A/G/A is a high school mathematics curriculum covering Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 through project-based learning and real-world problem contexts. The curriculum emphasizes student-centered constructivist approaches with 3-Act modeling tasks and STEM applications.

Best for

High schools seeking project-based math curriculum with strong real-world connections, particularly those prioritizing conceptual understanding over procedural fluency

Evaluation Criteria

1 strength · 2 concerns · 4 neutral · 2 insufficient evidence

Visual RepresentationsStrength

Strong use of visual models through 3-Act tasks and STEM problems. The curriculum incorporates meaningful real-world contexts that likely include visual representations.

New Mexico review highlights 'excellent 3-Act modeling and STEM problems' and 'performance tasks that meaningfully engage students'

Worked ExamplesConcern

The curriculum may over-scaffold problems, potentially limiting cognitive load benefits of worked examples. Problems are described as either completely worked out or over-scaffolded.

New Mexico review criticizes 'insufficient scaffolding that prevents productive struggle (problems either worked out completely or over-scaffolded)'

Direct InstructionConcern

The curriculum includes direct instruction elements but emphasizes constructivist, student-centered approaches that may limit explicit teacher-led instruction. This represents a departure from research-supported direct instruction models.

Teaching By Science notes 'direct instruction' as included but criticizes constructivist approaches; pedagogy described as 'student-centered learning, meta-cognition strategies, and inquiry-based methods'

Word ProblemsNeutral

The curriculum provides extensive real-world applications but may lack systematic word problem instruction. While 3-Act tasks and STEM problems are strong, application problems are criticized as closed-ended with limited reasoning opportunities.

New Mexico review notes 'excellent 3-Act modeling and STEM problems' but criticizes 'insufficient application questions' and 'many application problems are closed-ended with limited scope for student reasoning'

Teacher TrainingNeutral

EdReports confirms the curriculum meets expectations for teacher supports, though specific details about professional development are not provided. Limited public access to materials makes full assessment difficult.

EdReports Gateway 3 'Meets Expectations' for usability including teacher supports; Teaching By Science notes 'difficulty in assessing the program due to limited public access'

Assessment DiagnosticNeutral

EdReports confirms adequate assessment features, though specific diagnostic capabilities are not detailed in available reviews. The curriculum meets usability expectations including assessment.

EdReports Gateway 3 'Meets Expectations' for usability including assessment; no specific diagnostic assessment details provided

Conceptual Procedural BalanceNeutral

The curriculum provides strong conceptual understanding but may under-emphasize procedural fluency. EdReports confirms balance meets expectations, though New Mexico reviewers note adequate but not exceptional procedural practice.

EdReports Gateway 2 rating 'Meets Expectations' for rigor balance; New Mexico review notes 'adequate procedural practice' but emphasizes conceptual strengths

Retrieval PracticeInsufficient Evidence

Insufficient evidence to determine whether the curriculum incorporates systematic retrieval practice and spaced review. Reviews do not address cumulative review or practice testing features.

No specific information about retrieval practice or spaced review mentioned in available reviews

Sequencing ApproachInsufficient Evidence

Insufficient evidence to determine the specific sequencing approach used. Reviews focus on content quality rather than how topics are sequenced across or within courses.

No specific information provided about mastery-based vs. spiral sequencing in available reviews

Sources: edreports.org, teachingbyscience.com