Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying and Challenging the Narrow Cognitive Demands of Science Textbooks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Challenges in Science Education

Abstract

Textbooks can act as filters and conduits between educational policies and classroom teaching. This research analyzes the cognitive demands of questions in nine senior science textbooks written for the recently reformed curriculum in Queensland, Australia. Marzano and Kendall’s (The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Corwin Press, 2007) New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives is used as theoretical framework to classify cognitive skills required by students to successfully complete questions. Results show that the textbook questions emphasize lower-order cognitive skills, such as retrieval and knowledge comprehension over real-world application of knowledge, metacognitive thinking, or reflection on beliefs and emotions. Textbook questions seem to prioritize the learning of facts over processes, linguistic over symbolic responses, and deductive over inductive reasoning. A focus on a narrow range of cognitive skills in science textbooks may give students a false impression of the nature of science knowledge and scientific practices beyond school. Future science textbook developers need to consider the alignment of textbook content with the aims of courses and the needs of students. The challenge for science educators is to critically select high-quality teaching resources at a time of continuously increasing choice to ensure that students are able to meet the diverse cognitive, affective, and ethical demands of a globally changing milieu.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adamson, S., Alini, O., Champion, N., & Kuhn, T. (2018). Nelson QScience physics units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Cengage Learning Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Abridged. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson-Bakken, E., Jegstad, K. M., & Bakken, J. (2020). Textbook tasks in the Norwegian school subject natural sciences: What views of science do they mediate? International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1320–1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1756516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assaly, I. R., & Smadi, O. M. (2015). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of master class textbook’s questions. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n5p100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., Allinson, A., Devlin, J., Eddy, S., & Hore, B. (2019). Pearson physics Queensland 12 units 3 & 4 student book (1st ed.). Pearson Education Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersema, J. J., Barendse, G. W. J., Bertels, J., & de Wit, A. E. (2001). Is it all in the books? An analysis of the content and scope of 12 environmental science books. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borger, P., Grant, K., Wright, J., & Munro, L. (2018). Nelson QScience biology units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Cengage Learning Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • BouJaoude, S., & Noureddine, R. (2020). Analysis of science textbooks as cultural supportive tools: The case of Arab countries. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1108–1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1748252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, J., & Jiang, C. (2017). An analysis of problem-posing tasks in Chinese and US elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1521–1540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9758-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601159407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L., Ganesh, T., Lee, Y., & Phillips, M. (2006). Examination of science textbook analysis research conduced on textbooks published over the past 100 years in the United States. In Annual Conference for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Anaheim, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çimer, A., & Co, S. (2018). Students’ opinions about their ninth grade biology textbook: From the perspective of constructivist learning approach. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(4), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n4p201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, R. A., & Baldwin, B. A. (2005). Cognitive skills objectives in intermediate accounting textbooks: Evidence from end-of-chapter material. Journal of Accounting Education, 23(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2005.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dávila, K., & Talanquer, V. (2010). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed8000232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gracin, D. G. (2018). Requirements in mathematics textbooks: A five-dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and examples. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1003–1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1431849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadar, L. L. (2017). Opportunities to learn: Mathematics textbooks and students’ achievements. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55(August), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M., Bliss, C., Fesuk, S., Jacobs, J., & Maher, F. (2019). Pearson biology Queensland 12 units 3 & 4 student book (1st ed.). Pearson Education Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L. (2018). The problem of induction. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition).

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, N., Bruns, E., Commons, C., Commons, P., & Hogendoorn, B. (2019). Pearson chemistry Queensland 12 units 3 & 4 student book (1st ed.). Pearson Education Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, L., Walter, M., & Flexman, R. (2019). Biology for Queensland an Australian perspective units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C., Boon, H., & Dinan Thompson, M. (2021). Cognitive demands of the reformed Queensland physics, chemistry and biology syllabus: An analysis framed by the new taxonomy of educational objectives. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09988-4

  • Kahveci, A. (2010). Quantitative analysis of science and chemistry textbooks for indicators of reform: A complementary perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1495–1519. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903127649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers, K., Devlin, P., Brabec, M., Sharpe, P., & Bloomfield, C. (2019). Chemistry for Queensland units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing and assessing educational objectives: Applying the new taxonomy. Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2016). Evaluating junior secondary science textbook usage in Australian schools. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9468-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakiboglu, C., & Yildirir, H. E. (2011). Analysis of Turkish high school chemistry textbooks and teacher-generated questions about gas laws. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1047–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9231-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Overman, M., Vermunt, J. D., Meijer, P. C., Bulte, A. M. W., & Brekelmans, M. (2013). Textbook questions in context-based and traditional chemistry curricula analysed from a content perspective and a learning activities perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2954–2978. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.680253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappa, E. T., & Tsaparlis, G. (2011). Evaluation of questions in general chemistry textbooks according to the form of the questions and the question-answer relationship (QAR): The case of intra- and intermolecular chemical bonding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1rp90031e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1992). The questioning level of select middle school science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 92(2), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1992.tb12145.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the common core standards in mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185–1211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratama, G. S., & Retnawati, H. (2018). Urgency of higher order thinking skills (HOTS) content analysis in mathematics textbook. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1097/1/012147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qhibi, A. D., Dhlamini, Z. B., & Chuene, K. (2020). Investigating the strength of alignment between senior phase mathematics content standards and workbook activities on number patterns. Pythagoras, 41(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v41i1.569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2018). Biology 2019 v1.2 general senior syllabus. Retrieved from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/senior-subjects/sciences/biology/syllabus

  • Queensland Tertiary Admission Centre. (2021). ATAR report 2020 Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre. Retrieved from https://www.qtac.edu.au/publications/

  • Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chávez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, 61(5), 61–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapountzi, L., & Skoumios, M. (2014). Analysis of the questions of Greek physics textbooks from a content perspective. The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning, 20(3), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7971/CGP/v20i03/49041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuyi, N. S., & Renandya, W. A. (2019). An analysis of the cognitive rigour of questions used in secondary school English language textbooks in Singapore. Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 7, 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stansbie, N., Steeples, B., & Windsor, S. (2019). Nelson QScience chemistry units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Cengage Learning Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarman, B., & Kuran, B. (2015). Examination of the cognitive level of questions in social studies textbooks and the views of teachers based on bloom taxonomy. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.1.2625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Törnroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usiskin, Z. (2013). Studying textbooks in an information age – A United States perspective. ZDM – International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0514-6

    Article  Google 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 throught the world of textbooks. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Ham, A. K., & Heinze, A. (2018). Does the textbook matter? Longitudinal effects of textbook choice on primary school students’ achievement in mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019). Science education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496–1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walding, R. (2019). New century physics for Queensland units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D., & Sianturi, I. A. (2017). An analysis of Singaporean versus Indonesian textbooks based on trigonometry content. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3829–3848. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00760a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D., Wang, Z., & Xu, D. (2015). A comparison of questions and tasks in geography textbooks before and after curriculum reform in China. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 5(3), 231–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziebell, N., & Clarke, D. (2018). Curriculum alignment: Performance types in the intended, enacted, and assessed curriculum in primary mathematics and science classrooms. Studia Paedagogica, 23(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2018-2-10

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

    Claudia E. Johnson & Helen J. Boon

Authors
  1. Claudia E. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen J. Boon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia E. Johnson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Gregory P. Thomas

  2. James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

    Helen J. Boon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Johnson, C.E., Boon, H.J. (2023). Identifying and Challenging the Narrow Cognitive Demands of Science Textbooks. In: Thomas, G.P., Boon, H.J. (eds) Challenges in Science Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18091-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18092-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation