A Comparative Analysis on Cognitive Domain for the Malaysian Primary Four Textbook Series
More details
Hide details
Pan Asia Publications Sdn. Bhd., Johor Bahru, MALAYSIA
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Education, Skudai, MALAYSIA
Online publish date: 2018-01-11
Publish date: 2018-01-11
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(4):1273–1286
The purpose of this study is to investigate the levels of cognitive domains of Malaysian Mathematics primary four textbooks developed under the old and new curriculum based on Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2015 Mathematics Framework. This study adopted content analysis where the mathematical tasks from the textbooks were classified in terms of type of tasks and cognitive domain. The results of the study showed that a large portion of mathematical tasks in the two textbooks are in the ‘knowing’ domain even though improvements have been made in the new version of mathematics primary four textbook which has more mathematical tasks in ‘applying’ and ‘reasoning’ domain compared to the old textbook. The findings of the study suggest the structure of Malaysian textbook to be updated to the current world changes by increasing the tasks in applying and reasoning domain. However, the effort to reduce the gap between the intended curriculum and the supporting textbooks need to be carefully planned such that students of different abilities can benefit. Meanwhile practitioners have to be smart in selecting and providing extra supplementary resources to serve the need of their students.
1. Bayazit, I. (2012). Quality of the tasks in the new Turkish elementary mathematics textbooks: The case of proportional reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 651-682. doi:10.1007/s10763-012-9358-8.
2. Brehmer, D., Ryve, A., & Van Steenbrugge, H. (2016). Problem solving in Swedish mathematics textbooks for upper secondary school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(6), 577-593. doi:10.1080/00313831.2015.1066427.
3. Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H. Y., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 117-151. doi:10.1080/10986060903460070.
4. Chávez, O. (2003). From the Textbook to the Enacted Curriculum: Textbook Use in the Middle School Mathematics Classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia.
5. Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D., Cervetti, G. N. & Tilson, J. L. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
6. Erbas, A. K., Alacaci, C., & Bulut, M. (2012). A Comparison of Mathematics Textbooks from Turkey, Singapore, and the United States of America. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 2324-2329.
7. Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 61-75. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-9069-6.
8. Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM, 45(5), 633-646. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0539-x.
9. Firouzian, S., Yusof, Y. M., Ismail, Z., Kashefi, H., Rahman, R. A., & Firouzian, F. (2014, April). Mathematical competency of engineers and engineering students. In Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 216-219). IEEE. doi:10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.49.
10. Grønmo, L. S., Lindquist, M., Arora, A., & Mullis, I. V. (2015). TIMSS 2015 mathematics framework. TIMSS, 11-28.
11. Haji Ahmad, R. (1998). Educational Development and Reformation in Malaysia: Past, Present and Future. Journal of Educational Administration, 36 (5), 462-475. doi:10.1108/09578239810238456.
12. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for research in mathematics education, 524-549. doi:10.2307/749690.
13. Ismail, Z., Voon, L. L., & Wei, C. S. (2015). Assessing Statistical Reasoning Among Chinese Primary School Students. Advanced Science Letters, 21(7), 2239-2242. doi:10.1166/asl.2015.6254.
14. Johansson, M. (2005). Mathematics textbooks: The link between the intended and the implemented curriculum? Paper presented at the The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project: Reform, Revolution and Paradigm Shifts in Mathematics Education. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
15. Jones, D. L., & Tarr, J. E. (2007). An examination of the levels of cognitive demand required by probability tasks in middle grades mathematics textbooks. Statistics Education Research Journal, 6(2), 4-27.
16. Lee, C. B., Koh, N. K., Cai, X. L., & Quek, C. L. (2012). Children’s use of Meta-Cognition in Solving Everyday Problems: Children’s Monetary Decision making. Australian Journal of Education, 56(1), 22-39. doi:10.1177/000494411205600103.
17. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human communication research, 28(4), 587-604. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x.
18. Malaysia, K. P. (1993). Education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur.
19. Malaysia, K. P. (2011). Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah.
20. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Retrieved from
21. Mohammadpour, E., & Abdul Ghafar, M. N. (2014). Mathematics achievement as a function of within-and between-school differences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(2), 189-221. doi:10.1080/00313831.2012.725097.
22. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2005). IEA’s TIMSS 2003 International Report on Achievement in the Mathematics Cognitive Domains: Findings from a developmental Project. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
23. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
24. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from
25. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O’Sullivan, C. Y., & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS 2011 Assessment Frameworks. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands.
26. Nie, B., Freedman, T., Hwang, S., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., & Cai, J. (2013). An investigation of teachers’ intentions and reflections about using Standards-based and traditional textbooks in the classroom. ZDM, 45(5), 699-711. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0493-7.
27. Ozgeldi, M., & Esen, Y. (2010). Analysis of Mathematical Task in Turkish elementary school mathematics textbook. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 277-2281. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.322.
28. Pang, J. (2008). Design and implementation of Korean mathematics textbooks. In Z. Usiskin & E. Willmore (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in Pacific Rim countries: China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore, (pp. 95-125). North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.
29. Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: a way to understand teaching and learning cultures. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 33(5), 158-175. doi:10.1007/BF02656616.
30. Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual Evolution from Adolescence to Adulthood. Human Development, 15 (1), 1-12. doi:10.1159/000271225.
31. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational researcher, 31(7), 3-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007003.
32. Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258-284. doi:10.1080/00909889909365539.
33. Rezat, S. (2006). A model of textbook use. In J. Novotna, H. Kratka, N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 409-416). Prague: PME.
34. Richards, J. C. (2001). The role of textbooks in a language program. Retrieved from
35. Sağlam, R., & Alacaci, C. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of Quadratics Unit in Singaporean, Turkish and IBDP Mathematics Textbooks. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 3(3), 131-147.
36. Shield, M., & Dole, S. (2009). An analysis of middle-years school mathematics textbooks. In The International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (CoSMED 2009) (pp. 369-375). Penang: SEAMEO RECSAM.
37. Silver, E. A. (2009). Cross-national comparisons of mathematics curriculum materials: what might we learn? ZDM, 41(6), 827-832. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0209-1.
38. Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Charalambous, C. Y., & Mills, V. (2009). Exploring the curriculum implementation plateau: An instructional perspective. In Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 245-265). New York: Routledge.
39. Son, J. W. (2012). A cross-national comparison of reform curricula in Korea and the US in terms of cognitive complexity: the case of fraction addition and subtraction. ZDM, 44(2), 161-174. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0386-1.
40. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American educational research journal, 33(2), 455-488. doi:10.3102/00028312033002455.
41. Sturman, L., Ruddock, G., Burge, B., Styles, B., Lin, Y., & Vappula, H. (2008). England’s achievement in TIMSS 2007. Retrieved on 27 July 2011 from
42. Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Reasoning-and-proving in school mathematics textbooks. Mathematical thinking and learning, 11(4), 258-288. doi:10.1080/10986060903253954.
43. Thomson, S., & Fleming, N. (2004). Summing it up: Mathematics achievement in Australian schools in TIMSS 2002. Australia: Australian Council for Education Research.
44. Törnroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315-327. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.005.
45. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H. & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0844-0.
46. Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med, 37(5), 360-363.
47. Vincent, J., & Stacey, K. (2008). Do mathematics textbooks cultivate shallow teaching? Applying the TIMSS video study criteria to Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 82-107. doi:10.1007/BF03217470.
48. Weinberg, A., & Wiesner, E. (2011). Understanding mathematics textbooks through reader-oriented theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(1), 49-63. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9264-3.
49. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2012). Mass media research: An introduction (10th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
50. Zakaria, E., & Iksan, Z. (2007). Promoting Cooperative Learning in Science and Mathematics Education: A Malaysian Perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 35-39. doi:10.12973/ejmste/75372.