Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2008.28.7.697

An Analysis of Structural Features, Contents, and Cognitive Levels of Questions of Korea and Secondary Textbooks in the Evolution Unit  

Park, Sung-Il (Gwangju Seoseok Elementary School (English Center))
Kang, Nam-Ha (Oregon State University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.28, no.7, 2008 , pp. 697-712 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to seek strengths and weaknesses from analyzing Korea and U.S. science textbooks in terms of general structural features, contents, cognitive levels of questions and the purpose of questions used in science textbooks. This provided insight into improvement of textbooks that can effectively assist teaching and learning. To investigate organization of unit in textbooks in-depth, the evolution unit was selected and scrutinized as one example. The results showed that the number of pages, activities, vocabulary words, and vocabulary lists are considerably different between Korean and the U.S. Commonly, U.S. textbooks were more laden with information and lacking in coherence than those of the Korean textbooks. The findings on the cognitive levels of questions showed that the majority of questions in both nations are concerned with knowledge. However, the difference between the two nations is great in the ratios of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation questions. Questions are concentrated in review section (45% of Korean and 60.6% of U.S.) in textbooks. It suggested that well-planned questions in a review section can provide the basic guidance for strength in a science classroom.
Keywords
secondary science textbooks; structural features; contents; questions; purpose questions; cognitive level questions; organization;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Ashner, M. J. (1961). Asking questions to trigger thinking. NEA Journal, 50, 44-46
2 Carner, R. L. (1963). Levels of questioning. Education, 83, 546-550
3 Elder, L. and Paul, r. (1997) Crinical thinking: Crucial distinctions for questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(1), 24-25
4 Holliday, W. G. (1981). Selective attentional effects of textbooks study questions on student learningin science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18. 283-289   DOI
5 Lowery, L.F., & Leonard, W. H. (1971). Development and method for use an instrument designed to assess textbook questioning style. School Science and Mathematics, 78(5), 393-400   DOI
6 Lumpe, A. T., & Beck, J. (1996). A profile of high school biology textbooks using scientific literacy recommendations. The American Biology Teacher, 58(3), 147-153   DOI
7 Martin, D. J. (2000). Elementary science methods: constructivist methods. Baltimore: Thomson Learning
8 Ministry of Education (1999). 50 Years of the Ministry of Education History. Seoul: MOE
9 Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1992). The questions level of select middle school science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 92(2), 74-79   DOI
10 Sewall, G. T. (2002). Textbooks and the United nations: The international system and what American students learn about it. An Education Report of the United Nations Association of the United States of America (UNA-USA), New York
11 Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Good, R. (1991). Elementary school teachers' beliefs about and perceptions of elementary school science, science textbooks, and supportive instructional factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (5), 437-454   DOI
12 Stake, R.E., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urban: University of Illinois, Center for Instruction Research and Curriculum Evaluation
13 Tolman, M., & Hardy, G. (1995). Discovering elementary science: Method, content, and problemsolving activities.Boston MA: Allyn & Bacon
14 Tyson, H. (1997). Overcoming structural barriers to good textbooks. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Education Goals Panel. Retrieve from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/Reports/tyson.htm
15 Ulerick, S. L. (1989). Using textbooks for meaningful learning science. NARST News, 31. 15-16
16 Weiss, I. R. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute
17 Wixson, K. K. (1983). Postreading questionsanswer interactions and children's learning from text. Journal of Educational psychology, 30, 413-423
18 Yore, L. D. (1991). Secondary science teachers' attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 55-72   DOI
19 Andre, T. (1976). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280-318
20 Dahlgren, M. & Orberg, G. (2003). Questioning to learn and learning to question: Structure and function of problem-based learning scenarios in environmental science learning. Higher Education, 41, 263-282   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Carl, J. R. Jr. (1967). An assessment of the cognitive content of review questions in selected secondary general biology textbooks. Unpublished Dissertation, The University of Alabama
22 Chambliss, M, J., & Calfee, R, C. (1989). Designing science textbooks to enhance student understanding. Educational Psychologist, 24(3), 307-322   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Meyer, L., Crummey, L., & Greer, E. (1988). Elementary science textbooks: Their contents, text characteristic, and comprehensibility. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(6), 435-463   DOI
24 Fraenkel, J. R. (1966). Ask the right questions. Clearing House, 40, 397-400   DOI
25 Koufetta-Menicou C and Scaife J A, (2000). Teachers' questions - types and significance in science education. School Science Review, 81(296), 79-84
26 Shepardson, D. P., & Pizzini, E. L., (1991). Questioning level of juniorhigh school science textbooks and their implications for learning textual information. Science Education, 75(6), 673-682   DOI
27 Hugang (2004). A study on the current status of the Korean textbooks and its improvement strategies. Korea Textbook Research Foundation. 80-110
28 Chai, J. Y. & Jin, R. (2004). Discourse Structure for Context Question Answering. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from www.cse.msu.edu/~rongjin/publications/HLTQAWorkshop04.pdf
29 Eltinge, E. M. (1998). Linguistic content analysis of the Holt, Rinehart and Winston series of high school biology textbooks: A Longitudinal study focusing on the use of inquiry. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Iowa State University
30 Kleinman, G. (1965). Teacher's questions and student understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 307-317   DOI
31 Glaubman, R and Glaubman, H. (1997). Effects of self-directed learning, story comprehension, and self-questioning in kindergarten. Journal of Educational Research, 90(6), 361-374   DOI
32 Valverde, G.A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R.G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigation the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer
33 Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40(5), p. 707-721   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Chiang-Soong, Betty. (1988). An Analysis of the Most Used Science Textbooks in Secondary Schools in the United States, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Iowa. Crooks, K. B. (1961). Suggestions for teaching the scientific method. American Biology Teaching. 23, 154-159
35 Edwards, S., & Bowman, M. (1996). Promoting student learning through questioning: A study of classroom questions. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(2), 3-24
36 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: cognitive domain. New York: David Mckay
37 Leonard, W.H. (1987). Does the presentation style of questions inserted into text influence understanding and retention of science concepts? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 24(1), 27-37   DOI
38 Wilson, J. T., & Koran, J. J. (1976). Review of research on mathematic behavior: Implications for teaching and learning science. Science Education, 60, 391-400   DOI
39 Park, D. Y. (2005).Differences between a standards-based curriculum and traditional textbooks in high school earth science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(5), 540-547   DOI
40 Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W., & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understanding and misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research of Science Teaching, 29, 105-120   DOI
41 Stern, L. S., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from project 2061's curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 538-568   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Workshop on Pragmatics in Question Answering (HLT-NAACL). Retrieve April 23, 2007, from www.cse.msu.edu/~rongjin/publications/HLTQAWorkshop04.pdf
43 Park, D. Y. (2005). Differences between a standards-based curriculum and traditional textbooks in high school earth science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(5), 540-547   DOI
44 Sanders, N. M. (1966). Classroom questions: What kinds? New York: Harper & Row
45 Davis, O. L., and Hunkins, F. P. (1966). Textbook questions: What thinking processes do they foster? Peabody Journal of Education, 43(5), 285-292   DOI
46 Park, K., & Leung, K. S. F. (2005). Chapter 2-5: A Comparative Study of the Mathematics Textbooks of China, England, Japan, Korea, and the United States. New ICMI Study Series, 9, 227-238