Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Jurnal

An Instructional Analysis of the 10th Grade Textbook Entitled “English for Critical Thinking” Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature · Vol. 20 No. 3 (2025) · hlm. 205–216

DOI
10.15294/lc.v19i2s.26902
ISSN
2460-853X, 1858-0157
Terbit
2025-08-22
Penerbit
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Bahasa
eng

Abstrak

Several previous studies that conducted textbook evaluations still found many shortcomings, imbalances, and inadequate content with their claims and misalignment with the curriculum objectives. In addition, many textbook evaluations of HOTS focused on reading comprehension and the main textbook. This study, therefore to fill the gaps, aimed to (1) classify all exercise instructions in the textbook entitled “English for Critical Thinking” Grade 10th into Lower-Order Thinking Skills (LOTS: C1–C3) and HOTS (C4–C6) based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, and (2) identify which HOTS category was most prevalent. Employing a qualitative content-analysis approach, the researcher systematically reviewed and coded 57 instructional items across the twelve chapters, assigning each to its respective Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive level. Findings reveal that LOTS dominated 82.45% of all instruction exercises, while HOTS comprised only 17.54%. Within the HOTS domain, analyzing (C4) was overwhelmingly the most frequent with eight occurrences (80%), whereas evaluating (C5) and creating (C6) appeared only once each (10% each). This imbalance indicates that, although C4 tasks are fairly represented, higher cognitive processes of evaluation and creation remain severely under implemented. Consequently, the textbook’s purported support for critical and creative thinking does not fully align with Merdeka Curriculum objectives. Therefore, textbook developers and teachers should enrich future editions with more evaluative and creative tasks and ensure a balanced cognitive progression to develop students’ HOTS optimally.

Kata kunci

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

40 penulis · 111 tautan kepenulisan bersama · 1 lintas organisasi · menampilkan 40 yang paling banyak terhubung

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • Universitas Halu Oleo
  • State University of Semarang
  • Gunadarma University
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Muhammad Syukri SadimantaraUniversitas Halu Oleo11
SRI REJEKIUniversitas Halu Oleo10
RH Fitri FaradillaAfiliasi tidak diketahui10
Ansharullah AnsharullahUniversitas Halu Oleo8
Andi KhaeruniUniversitas Halu Oleo7
Hermanto HermantoUniversitas Halu Oleo6
Asnani AsnaniAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
LA KARIMUNAUniversitas Halu Oleo4
Sigit PriatmokoState University of Semarang4
Tamrin TamrinUniversitas Halu Oleo3
Rudi HartonoAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Subiyanto Hadi SaputroAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Nur AsyikUniversitas Halu Oleo2
Sarinah SarinahAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Zulfa SakhiyyaAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Januarius MujiyantoAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Rahayu Puji HaryantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Yuni Dwi SusantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Abdurrachman FaridiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Sri KadarwatiState University of Semarang2
F. ‪Widhi MahatmantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Harjito HarjitoAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Agung Tri PrasetyaState University of Semarang2
Jumaeri JumaeriAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Sri Wuli FitriatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Sri Endah WahyuningsihAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Muh Fakhrihun Na'amAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Kurnia FebiantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Sudawan SupriadiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Nurul HidayatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Rudi TriyonoAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Rindi Anti Nur FadhilahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
LIANTO -Afiliasi tidak diketahui1
Fitrianingsih FitrianingsihGunadarma University1
Nabila UkhtyAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Safrika SafrikaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Bagio BagioAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Rezqi MaliaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/LC/oai, pertama di-harvest 5 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 5 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">An Instructional Analysis of the 10th Grade Textbook Entitled “English for Critical Thinking” Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Fatwadika Adinia Dakoranis</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Sri Wahyuni</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">HOTS, Instructional Question Type, Content Analysis, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">Several previous studies that conducted textbook evaluations still found many shortcomings,  imbalances, and inadequate content with their claims and misalignment with the curriculum  objectives. In addition, many textbook evaluations of HOTS focused on reading comprehension and the main textbook. This study, therefore to fill the gaps, aimed to (1) classify all exercise  instructions in the textbook entitled “English for Critical Thinking” Grade 10th into Lower-Order Thinking Skills (LOTS: C1–C3) and HOTS (C4–C6) based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, and  (2) identify which HOTS category was most prevalent. Employing a qualitative content-analysis approach, the researcher systematically reviewed and coded 57 instructional items across the twelve chapters, assigning each to its respective Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive level. Findings reveal that LOTS dominated 82.45% of all instruction exercises, while HOTS comprised only 17.54%. Within the HOTS domain, analyzing (C4) was overwhelmingly the most frequent with eight occurrences (80%), whereas evaluating (C5) and creating (C6) appeared only once each (10% each). This imbalance indicates that, although C4 tasks are fairly  represented, higher cognitive processes of evaluation and creation remain severely under implemented. Consequently, the textbook’s purported support for critical and creative thinking does not fully align with Merdeka Curriculum objectives. Therefore, textbook developers and teachers should enrich future editions with more evaluative and creative tasks and ensure a balanced cognitive progression to develop students’ HOTS optimally. </dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2025-08-22</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/LC/article/view/26902</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/lc.v19i2s.26902</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature; Vol. 20 No. 3 (2025): August 2025 Special Issue; 205 - 216</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2460-853X</dc:source>
	<dc:source>1858-0157</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/lc.v19i2s</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/LC/article/view/26902/6035</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2025 Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>