Cited by 5Educational Assessment and PedagogyEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEducation and Critical Thinking Development

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 access
National Institute of Education, Singapore, Shuyi, Natalie Soong, Renandya, Willy, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore·2019·Asian Journal of English Language Studies

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.59960/7.a8

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 5

Metadata

Authors
National Institute of Education, S., Shuyi, N. S., Renandya, W., & Nanyang Technological University, S.
Affiliations
Nanyang Technological University (SG)
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
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