The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An analysis of the cognitive rigour of questions used in secondary school English language textbooks in Singapore
Open accessAbstract
Textbooks are an essential component in the classroom, making it extremely crucial to regularly evaluate textbooks used in schools so that their pedagogical contributions towards the teaching and learning processes can be guaranteed.The study aimed to identify and analyse the cognitive levels of questions available in Secondary Three All About English textbooks, which have been used in Singapore since 2013.The objective of carrying out the analysis was to determine the overall cognitive rigour of questions, using a matrix superimposing two taxonomies: Revised Bloom's Taxonomy and Webb's Domain-of-Knowledge (DOK) model.The sample of this study consisted of questions from the Express and Normal Technical (NT) English language textbooks published by Hodder Education, where 346 questions were analysed in total.The cognitive rigour matrix was used in the classification of the questions.The results revealed that in the Express level textbook, most questions were within the cell [2,3] (35.9%), consisting of Understand and "Strategic Thinking" questions.In contrary, for the Normal Technical level textbook, most questions were within the cell [5,4] (17.6%), consisting of Evaluate and "Extended Thinking" questions.Overall, there was a good mix of Lower-order thinking skill (LOTS) and Higher-order thinking skill (HOTS) questions.However, not all cognitive levels were clearly varied, with an overemphasis on Understand and Evaluate questions, neglecting Remember and Apply questions.In light of the results, it is recommended that coursebook writers should incorporate questions of varied cognitive demands.We recommend that teachers should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of school textbooks so that there is closer alignment between the curriculum and the textbooks that teachers use in the classroom.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Shuyi and Renandya (2019) used Bloom's Revised Taxonomy and Webb's (2002) Domain ofKnowledge Model”
From Investigating Critical Thinking in ELT Textbooks: A Systematic Literature Review of Textbook Evaluation Studies (2024) · cites this paper as Shuyi and Renandya (2019)
Citations
Cites
Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Evaluate the Cognitive Levels of Master Class Textbook’s Questions
R. Assaly, I., & M. Smadi, O. (2015) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v8n5p100 · Cited by 92
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Soe, T. (2024) · Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.31261/tapsla.13882 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- National Institute of Education, S., Shuyi, N. S., Renandya, W., & Nanyang Technological University, S.
- Affiliations
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- ORCID
- Renandya, Willy
- Venue
- Asian Journal of English Language Studies
- Published
- 2019-12-31
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 172-190
- ISSN
- 2619-7219 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4385222132
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Asian Journal of English Language Studies (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Keywords
- textbook question analysis, English textbooks, secondary school English, Bloom's taxonomy, higher-order thinking skills, lower order thinking skills, cognitive demand, textbook evaluation, curriculum alignment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review