Examining the coherence of the curriculum content in the biology textbooks of the senior high school

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Bu-Ali Sina University

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the coherence of the content of the biology textbooks of the second year of high school. For this purpose, four indicators of breadth, continuity, sequence and integration in the mentioned books were examined using qualitative content analysis. The sample of the research was all textbooks and textbooks of biology teacher in the second year of high school in the academic year 2019-2020. The results of the data analysis showed that in the scope index, the 11th and 12th grade books fully complied with the content and performance standards, but the 10th grade does not have these standards. In the continuity index, the content of the second year of high school is in a good condition and more than 90% of the content is related to continuity. In the sequence index, as an example of the 12th grade textbook, it was found that it does not follow any of the sequence methods in the literature of this field. In the integration index, it was found that this index has not received much attention.
 

Keywords


Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia.
American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2002). AAAS Annual Report 2002. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/resources/aaas-annual-report-2002
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2005). High school biology textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. Retrieved from the AAAS Project, 2061.‏
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2019). Project 2061. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/
Arzuman, H. (2011). Undergraduate medical curriculum of Universiti Sains Malaysia in terms of Harden’s ten questions of curriculum development. South-East Asian J Med Educ, 5, 3-8.‏
Bardeen, M., & Lederman, L. M. (1998). Coherence in science education. Science, 2, 178–179.
Beane, J. (1995). Introduction: What is a coherent curriculum? In J. Beane (Ed.), Toward a Coherent Curriculum (pp. 1–14). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bybee, R. W. (1989). Teaching high school biology: Materials and strategies. In W. G. Rosen (Ed.), High school biology today and tomorrow (pp.165-177). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2003). The teaching of science: Content, coherence, and congruence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 343-358.‏
Chu, H. C., Chen, M. Y., & Chen, Y. M. (2009). A semantic-based approach to content abstraction and annotation for content management. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 2360-2376.‏
Çobanoğlu, E. O., Şahin, B., & Karakaya, Ç. (2009). Examination of the biology textbook for 10th grades in high school education and the ideas of the pre-service teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2504-2512.‏
Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 475-493.‏
Doll, R. C. (1992). Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process. Allyn & Bacon.‏
Dufty, D., Graesser, A., Louwerse, M., & McNamara, D. (2006). Assigning grade levels to textbooks: Is it just readability? In R. Son (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meetings of the cognitive science society (pp. 1251–1256). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eryaman, M. Y. (2010). Disciplined-based curriculum. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (pp. 293-294). London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Ford, L. (2003). A curriculum design manual for theological education. Wipf and Stock Publishers.‏
Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Curriculum Coherence and Learning Progressions. Second International Handbook of Science Education In (pp. 783-798). Berlin, Germany: Springer, Dordrecht.
Fortus, D., Sutherland Adams, L. M., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2015). Assessing the role of curriculum coherence in student learning about energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1408-1425.‏
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York, NY: Guilford.
Harden, R. M. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum?. Medical teacher, 21(2), 141-143.
Hidayat, A. (2016). Coherence and cohesion in backgrpound of study of english department students’skripsi year 2011-2015 (Doctoral Dissertation, Universitas Negeri Jakarta).‏
Hunkins, F. P., & Ornstein, A. C. (1988). A Challenge for Principals Designing the Curriculum. NASSP Bulletin, 72(509), 50-59.‏
Kareem, L. O. (2003). Effects of audio-graphic self-instructional packages on senior secondary school students’ performance in biology in Ilorin, Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis of the University of Ilorin, Ilorin.
Kelly-Laubscher, R. F., & Luckett, K. (2016). Differences in curriculum structure between high school and university biology: The implications for epistemological access. Journal of Biological Education, 50(4), 425-441.‏
Knoepke, J., Richter, T., Isberner, M. B., Naumann, J., Neeb, Y., & Weinert, S. (2017). Processing of positive-causal and negative-causal coherence relations in primary school children and adults: a test of the cumulative cognitive complexity approach in German. Journal of child language, 44(2), 297-328.‏
Kong, S., & Hoare, P. (2011). Cognitive content engagement in content-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 307-324.
Kremer, K., Specht, C., Urhahne, D., & Mayer, J. (2014). The relationship in biology between the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 1-8.‏
256
 
Louwerse, M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parametrization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 291-316.‏
Lumpe, A. T. & Beck, J. (1996). A profile of school biology textbooks using scientific literacy recommendations. The American Biology Teacher, 58 (3), 147-153.
Matseleng, A. S., Dempster, E. R., & Barlow-Zambodla, A. (2008). Learning from Africa: BiologyA report of Umalusi’s researchcomparing Biology syllabuses andexaminations in South Africawith those inGhana, Kenya, and Zambia. Retrieved from Pretoria, South Africa: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273703361_Curriculum_comparison_Biol ogy
McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 55(1), 51.‏
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and instruction, 14(1), 1-43.
National Research Council. (1989). High-school biology today and tomorrow. National Academies.‏
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Nwafor, C. E., & Umoke, C. C. (2016). Evaluation of Some Approved Basic Science and Technology Textbooks in Use in Junior Secondary Schools in Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(14), 69-78.‏
Okeeffe, L. (2013). A framework for textbook analysis.
Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2014). Curriculum Foundations, Principles and Issues (6thed., pp. 151-175). United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
Otero, J., León, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2002). The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressbooks. (2018). Defining Content Structure. Content Organization. Authoring open textbooks. Retrieved from https://press.rebus.community/authoropen/chapter/defining-content-structure/
Robinson, J. (1981). Research in Science Education: New Questions, New Directions. National Centre of Education, Educational Resources Information Centre.
Robitaille, D. and K. Travers, (1992), International Studies of Achievement in Mathematics, In D.A. Grouws, Handbook of Research on Mathematics Education, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 687-709.
Rogers, K., Green, E. R, & Joshi, S. H. (2018). Biology. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available: https://www.britannica.com/science/biology
Roseman, J. E., Stern, L., & Koppal, M. (2010). A Method for Analyzing the Coherence of High School Biology Textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 47-70.
Sanders, T. J., Spooren, W. P., & Noordman, L. G. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse processes, 15(1), 1-35.‏
Schmidt, W. H. (2010). Are National Standards the Right Move? Educational Leadership, 67(7), 24-24.
Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the common core state standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294-308.‏
Schmidt, W. H., & Prawat, R. S. (2006). Curriculum coherence and national control of education: Issue or non-issue? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(6), 641-658.
Sikorski, T. R., & Hammer, D. (2017). Looking for coherence in science curriculum. Science Education, 101(6), 929-943.
Sinjela, K. M., Kijai, J., & Katenga, J. E. (2019, December). Teachers ́ Perception of Coherence in High School Biology Textbooks in Zambia. In Abstract Proceedings International Scholars Conference (Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1444-1468).‏
Smith, B.O., Stanley, W.O., & Shore, J.H. (1957). Fundamentals of curriculum development, New York: World Book.
Syamsudduha, S., Amir, J., & Wahida, W. (2019, March). Cohesion and Coherence in Indonesian Textbooks for The Tenth Grader of Senior High School. In Seventh International Conference on Languages and Arts (ICLA 2018). Atlantis Press.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford University Press.‏
Tiwari, D. (2008). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Education. London: Crescent publishing Corporation. uk.
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002) (1). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Springer Science & Business Media.‏
Valverde, G. A., Schmidt, W. H., Bianchi, L. J., R.G, W., & Houang, R. T. (2002) (2). Textbook Structure. According to the Book. Berlin, German: Dordrecht. Springer.
Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47-76.