An easy to compare tool for more readable (physics) textbooks

Škorecová, Ivana; Teleki, Aba; Lacsny, B; Zelenický, Ľubomír

doi:10.1088/0031-9120/51/6/065009

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…whether it is a sentence with a larger or smaller number of propositions (sentence sections). Another disadvantage of the mentioned formula (as well as the formula 𝐿𝐼𝑋) is that it does not allow us to find out at which student's level the analyzed text is (Skorecova -Zelenicky -Teleki, 2014). As another formula for analyzing the difficulty of a text, he mentions Nestler's formula (the author is the German psychologist Kathrin Nestler), which was also modified for Czech and Slovak texts, and which is used for a more complex analysis of the difficulty of a text.…”

Section: Textbooks and Content Analysis Of Textbookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content Analysis of Textbooks

Babulicova

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents the results of the content analysis of the teaching text. We analyzed two text samples selected from textbooks - "Biology 1 for grammar schools" (textbook 2) and "Biology for the 2nd year of grammar schools and the 6th year of grammar schools with an eight-year study" (textbook 1). Both of these textbooks are used in teaching subject Biology in Slovakia. When analyzing both teaching texts, we tried to find out whether the texts, in terms of content complexity, are processed appropriately for the 1st grade students at the gymnasium. As part of the content analysis, we focused on syntactic difficulty (Ts) and conceptual difficulty (Tp) and overall difficulty (T), for which we used the T measure (the innovative Nestlerová – Průcha – Pluskal measure). This measure was modified for the analysis of not only Czech, but also Slovak textbooks. Based on this measure, we came to the conclusion that textbook 1 is processed more demandingly and its degree of difficulty reached the value of 55.28 compared to textbook 2, which degree of difficulty reached the value of 52.10. In addition to the statistical difficulty of the text of both textbooks, we tried to analyze the text in terms of the occupation of individual topics, the basic and supplementary text and the overall visual and graphic processing of the textbooks.

show abstract

Section: Textbooks and Content Analysis Of Textbookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content Analysis of Textbooks

Babulicova

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, science education researchers at the primary level have identified many problems in science textbooks. The problems include the use of inappropriate vocabulary or readability (Skorecova et al, 2016), misinformation (King, 2010), too shallow concept (Chaisri & Thathong, 2014), creativity (Klieger & Sherman, 2015), and the lack of emphasis on students' scientific thinking (Chiappetta et al, 1993). Science teachers also tend only to use textbooks that can be found in bookstores or provided by schools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Low-Carbon Issues are Addressed in Primary School Textbooks

Hudha

Hamidah

Permanasari

et al. 2021

JPII

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to examine the existence of learning material related to educational issues regarding low-carbon levels. Through the content analysis, 26 primary school science textbooks from ten publishers in Indonesia were reviewed, focusing on the study covering the selection, presentation, provision of supporting materials, and low-carbon issues. The research method used is the qualitative content analysis process method with research steps: 1) Data collection; 2) Data analysis textbook; and 3) Ethical considerations. The results showed that sixty one point six percent of teachers said the book was under the curriculum's coverage. The sixty point six percent of the relevance of content to student experiences was appropriate, so is the fifty three point five percent of the relevance of examples and exercises with learning objectives and the material presented. It is also found that fifty five point six percent of various questions and discussions were adequate for testing students, the other fifty one point five percent had included supporting questions and exercises, and sixty point six percent of teachers said there was a teacher's guide. Then fifty point five percent, according to the teacher, students' awareness of low carbon is still relatively low, and forty six point six percent of the content coverage regarding low carbon is still considered sufficient by the teacher. This study concludes that there was too little coverage of low-carbon issues and a lack of additional material related to the low-carbon content in primary science textbooks. The topic of low carbon is still implicit in the environmental literacy found in textbooks. The follow-up that can be done is providing a low-carbon concept to science textbooks in primary schools so that our students and society will have low-carbon awareness and increased environmental literacy.

show abstract