Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Journal

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) · pp. 205–216

DOI
10.15294/lc.v19i2s.26902
ISSN
2460-853X, 1858-0157
Published
2025-08-22
Publisher
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Language
eng

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 112 co-authorship links · 1 across different organisations · showing the 40 most connected

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Universitas Halu Oleo
  • State University of Semarang
  • Gunadarma University
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Muhammad Syukri SadimantaraUniversitas Halu Oleo11
SRI REJEKIUniversitas Halu Oleo10
RH Fitri FaradillaAffiliation unknown10
Ansharullah AnsharullahUniversitas Halu Oleo8
Andi KhaeruniUniversitas Halu Oleo7
Hermanto HermantoUniversitas Halu Oleo6
Asnani AsnaniAffiliation unknown5
LA KARIMUNAUniversitas Halu Oleo4
Sigit PriatmokoState University of Semarang4
Tamrin TamrinUniversitas Halu Oleo3
Rudi HartonoAffiliation unknown3
Subiyanto Hadi SaputroAffiliation unknown3
Nur AsyikUniversitas Halu Oleo2
Sarinah SarinahAffiliation unknown2
Zulfa SakhiyyaAffiliation unknown2
Januarius MujiyantoAffiliation unknown2
Rahayu Puji HaryantiAffiliation unknown2
Yuni Dwi SusantiAffiliation unknown2
Abdurrachman FaridiAffiliation unknown2
Sri KadarwatiState University of Semarang2
F. ‪Widhi MahatmantiAffiliation unknown2
Harjito HarjitoAffiliation unknown2
Agung Tri PrasetyaState University of Semarang2
Jumaeri JumaeriAffiliation unknown2
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown2
Sri Endah WahyuningsihAffiliation unknown2
Muh Fakhrihun Na'amAffiliation unknown2
Kurnia FebiantiAffiliation unknown2
Nurul HidayatiAffiliation unknown1
Rudi TriyonoAffiliation unknown1
Rindi Anti Nur FadhilahAffiliation unknown1
LIANTO -Affiliation unknown1
Fitrianingsih FitrianingsihGunadarma University1
Nabila UkhtyAffiliation unknown1
Akbardiansyah AkbardiansyahAffiliation unknown1
Safrika SafrikaAffiliation unknown1
Bagio BagioAffiliation unknown1
Rezqi MaliaAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/LC/oai, first harvested 5 Nov 2026, last seen 5 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (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>