International Journal of Mathematical Education in

Science and Technology

ISSN: 0020-739X (Print) 1464-5211 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmes20

Requirements in mathematics textbooks: a five-

dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and
examples

Dubravka Glasnovic Gracin

To cite this article: Dubravka Glasnovic Gracin (2018): Requirements in mathematics textbooks:
a five-dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and examples, International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2018.1431849

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1431849

Published online: 08 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmes20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 
https://doi.org/./X..

Requirements in mathematics textbooks: a five-dimensional

analysis of textbook exercises and examples
Dubravka Glasnovic Gracin
Faculty of Teacher Education, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Mathematics textbooks play a very important role in mathematics Received  September 
education and textbook tasks are used by students for practice to a
KEYWORDS
large extent. Since the nature of the tasks may influence the way stu-
Content analysis;
dents think it is important that the textbooks provide a balance of a mathematics textbook; task
variety of tasks. The analyses of the requirements in textbook tasks types; textbook analysis;
contain the usual dimensions of content, cognitive demands, ques- mathematical activities;
tion type and contextual features. The aim of this study is to embed textbook research
a new fifth dimension into the framework: mathematical activities.
This addresses the question of what a student should do in a partic- SUBJECT
ular textbook task: to represent, to compute, to interpret or to use CLASSIFICATION CODE
U
argumentation. The analysis encompassed more than 22,000 tasks
from the most commonly used Croatian mathematics textbooks in
the 6th, 7th and 8th grade. The results show that the textbooks do
not provide a full range of task types. There is an emphasis on com-
putation, while argumentation and interpretation activities, reflec-
tive thinking and open answer tasks are underrepresented. The study
revealed that incorporating mathematical activities into the multidi-
mensional framework of textbook tasks may help to better under-
stand the opportunities to learn which are afforded students by using
mathematics textbooks.

1. Introduction
Textbooks play an important role in mathematics education [1,2] and are used to a great
extent in mathematics classrooms [3–5]. They are regarded as artefacts that translate policy
into pedagogy and represent a link between the intended and implemented curriculum;
they reflect the potentially implemented curriculum [6]. Textbooks are considered to be the
most frequently used resources in lesson preparation in some countries, even more so than
the curriculum outlines [7]. Usiskin [8] describes the experience from the United States
where the classroom practice is more oriented to what is written in the textbooks than what
the intended curriculum says. These findings are in line with Howson’s [9] thinking that
textbooks are closer to classroom reality than curriculum outlines. Therefore, the results
of textbook research have the potential to provide a broader and deeper picture of both
curriculum requirements and classroom practices.

CONTACT Dubravka Glasnovic Gracin [email protected]

©  Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

The research results indicate that textbooks are used to a great extent by students as a
source of tasks, particularly practice exercises [3,4,7]. Generally, ‘the tasks are considered as
devices for initiating activity’ [10,p.238] and they create opportunities for learning mathe-
matics [11]. Therefore, the nature of textbook tasks ‘can potentially influence and structure
the way students think and can serve to limit or to broaden their views of the subject matter
with which they are engaged’ [12,p.525]. Thus, it is important that the textbooks and other
curricular materials used in classrooms provide rich and worthwhile mathematical tasks.
Stenmark [13] suggests some possible features of rich tasks, they should be: essential (fit
into the core of the curriculum); authentic (use processes appropriate to the discipline);
rich (lead to other problems); engaging (thought-provoking); active (learners construct
meaning and deepen understanding); feasible (appropriate for learners); equitable (develop
thinking in a variety of styles), and open (have more than one answer or approach). Many of
the features mentioned connect rich tasks with high cognitive demands. Cognitive demand
refers to the different kinds of thinking required in a task: memorization, procedures with-
out connections to concept, procedures with connections to concept and doing mathemat-
ics [14]. Memorization involves reproducing rules or definitions, and procedures without
connections require conducting algorithms which ‘have no connections to the concepts or
meaning that underlie the procedure being used’ [14,p.348]. Procedures with connections
develop deeper levels of understanding of mathematical concepts and ideas. Doing mathe-
matics means requiring complex and non-algorithmic thinking with considerable cognitive
effort. Memorization and procedures without connections to concept (e.g. formulas) may
be characterized as low-level tasks, while the other two high-level tasks encompass ‘com-
prehension, interpretation, flexible application of knowledge and skills, and assembly of
information from several different sources to accomplish work’ [15,p.171].
The need for ‘rich’ tasks means that mathematics textbooks should provide tasks that will
engage students and challenge them to reason, as well as influence the quality of instruction
and provide opportunities for developing understanding. This does not mean that there
should be no low-level tasks in the textbooks or instruction. Vincent and Stacey [16] discuss
how it is important ‘that students are presented with a balanced curriculum experience. The
balance will need to be different for high and low achieving students, but all students need
exposure to the full range of problem types’ ([16 ,p.103]).
The various features of different types of mathematical tasks mean that their analysis
is complex. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the features and diversity of textbook
tasks according to a multidimensional tool, which, besides the usual dimensions including
cognitive demands and context types, also consists of an activity dimension to find what
should be done in a particular task.
The analysis encompassed Croatian mathematics textbooks in grades 6, 7 and 8. A brief
outline of education and research on textbooks in Croatia is given below. Compulsory edu-
cation in Croatia lasts for 8 years and is divided into grades 1–4 and 5–8. All pupils in
compulsory education follow the same national educational program. All textbooks used
in schools are approved by the state board. In Croatia, textbooks are traditionally bought by
parents or local communities so students have their own copies of the textbooks the school
has selected. The textbooks are brought to every mathematics lesson and used at home for
homework. The previous study comprised a survey on the role of mathematics textbooks
in grades 5–8. It involved nearly one thousand mathematics teachers, which is about half of
the total number of mathematics teachers in grades 5–8 in Croatia. The findings indicate
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3

that mathematics textbooks are in use to a great extent, especially in teachers’ preparation,
in practice exercises for students and in their homework [7]. Other materials are used in
classrooms, but not to such a large extent. Also, the results showed that the most important
factor in teachers’ choosing a textbook was the quality of textbook exercises.
Since textbook exercises greatly influence mathematics teaching, it is reasonable to pose
questions about the nature of and demands in these exercises, whether they help to enhance
mathematical understanding and to what extent they can be labelled as rich.

2. Literature review
Since mathematical tasks have great potential for challenging and engaging students [11], it
is important to consider the different studies and frameworks designed and used for inves-
tigating textbook tasks.

2.1. Analyses of textbook exercises and examples

Textbook examples and particularly exercises are the most important source of textbook
tasks. Since the worked examples and exercises are used to a large extent by students in
the classroom or for homework [3], they surely influence the understanding of mathemat-
ical concepts and have the potential to challenge and engage students [11]. Keitel et al. [17]
report that teachers find the quality and differentiation of the tasks to be the most important
thing about textbooks. A similar result can be found in [7]. Most of the textbooks follow
the structure of rule-example-practice. Love and Pimm [18] claim that the ‘exposition –
examples – exercises model’ is the most common way of organizing text in mathematics
textbooks (p.386). Exposition refers to the parts where the author presents the subject mat-
ter. Examples offer students a model to be implemented in the subsequent exercises. Exer-
cises refer to the various tasks that students should do and thus be active readers of the text.
Within this triad, the exercises part plays a very important role in mathematics education
because mathematics is usually learned through different tasks [11]. Therefore, some text-
book research has focused on the analysis of textbook exercises and problems from various
interesting aspects [6,16,19–21].
Such research requires a well-based framework. Zhu and Fan [19] conducted a com-
parative study of textbook tasks in the US and China at the lower secondary grade level.
They examined whether tasks are routine or non-routine, open or closed-ended, appli-
cation or non-application, traditional or non-traditional. The results showed that routine,
closed and traditional exercises without relevance to real-world situations dominate in both
countries. However, ‘more application problems, especially authentic ones, were found in
the US books’ ([19, p.621]).
Another comparative study of Chinese and US textbooks was conducted by Li [20]. Li
compared addition and subtraction of integers exercises in several American and Chinese
mathematics textbooks in the 7th grade. For this purpose, a three-dimensional (3D) frame-
work was developed. It encompassed mathematical features (single or multiple compu-
tation procedure required), contextual features (pure mathematical context or illustrative
context/story), and performance requirements (response type and cognitive requirement)
of every task examined. The study showed a predominance of simple computation pro-
cedures and purely mathematical contexts in both countries. Differences are obtained in
the performance requirements of the problems: the results indicate that the US textbooks
4 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

included more variety in problem requirements (e.g. explanation or solution required, con-
ceptual understanding required).
Another interesting instrument for textbook analysis was established by Dole and Shield
[22]. The authors examined the proportional reasoning in the worked examples of two
eighth-grade Australian mathematics textbooks. The results showed a predominance of
calculation and procedure activities in comparison to tasks which support the conceptual
understanding of proportions.
Vincent and Stacey [16] investigated different topics in eighth-grade Australian mathe-
matics textbooks. The aim was to investigate the ‘shallow teaching syndrome’ shown by the
previous study. The authors developed a framework for task analysis including: procedural
complexity, type of solving processes, degree of repetition, proportion of application prob-
lems, and proportion of problems requiring deductive reasoning. The procedural complex-
ity of a textbook task may be put at one of three levels: low, moderate, or high. The type of
solving processes refers to using a procedure, a concept or making connections. Although
some textbooks did challenge students to reason and to make connections, the results show
the predominance of lower procedural complexity in the examined textbook tasks. Vincent
and Stacey point out that a balance of task types is important for all students, which was
not the case in the textbooks examined.
Brändström [23] examined the differentiation of tasks (exercises, problems, word prob-
lems) in Swedish 7th-grade textbooks. The results show a low level of challenge in textbooks
because the emphasis is on tasks with lower cognitive difficulty.
In Ireland, O’Keeffe and O’Donoghue conducted a mathematics textbook analysis study
with the intention of highlighting key textbook features which impact on students’ learning
[24]. Their framework is primarily based on the TIMSS textbook analysis and comprises
Content, Structure, Expectation and Language. The examined textbook series are found to
be non-innovative in the sense of comprehension and motivation. The analysis also showed
that less than one quarter of all exercises in all the textbooks could be classified as non-
routine problems. This finding indicates once again the low expectations in the textbook
exercises.
The literature review shows that the instrument for analysing the textbook tasks (exer-
cises, examples and other questions) usually includes: answer type, routine or concept ori-
entation, level of complexity and application. Some studies focus on a particular mathemat-
ical topic, while others focus on the mathematics textbook tasks of a whole school grade.
The developed frameworks contain a complex structure, which is in line with the multi-
layered role of textbook tasks in mathematics education [11]. The results of the studies pre-
sented in the literature review generally show the predominance of tasks with lower level
expectations in mathematics textbooks.
However, the studies presented in this section did not clearly encompass another
important dimension of textbook tasks: mathematical activities, i.e. what should be done
in a particular task (for example, does the textbook task require the activity of computation
or another activity, such as drawing a figure or giving a mathematical explanation). The
dominance of just one activity may have a negative effect on the students’ understanding of
mathematical ideas and may limit their views. For example, Dole and Shield [22] examined
proportional reasoning in the worked examples of two 8th-grade Australian mathematics
textbooks. The results showed that the ‘textbook analysis highlighted the range of compu-
tational procedures presented to students through their study of ratio and proportion, and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5

also made apparent the minimal use of diagrams, tables and graphs to further proportional
reasoning’ [22,p.32]. Different mathematical activities presented within the textbook
exercises should challenge students and develop understanding. These results indicate that
mathematical activities are also worth including in the analysis of textbook tasks.

2.2. Mathematical activities

The idea of involving mathematical activities has its origin in the competency approach of
mathematics education [25]. Niss [25] places the focus on ‘mathematical activity by ask-
ing what it means to be mathematically competent’ [25,p.39]. The author with his expert
group in Denmark proposed eight mathematical competencies: mathematical thinking,
mathematical problem handling, mathematical modelling, mathematical reasoning, math-
ematical representation, mathematical symbol and formalism, mathematical communica-
tion and mathematical aids and tools. Many national curricula involve these competencies
under the heading Mathematical Processes which includes problem solving, reasoning and
proof, communication, connections and representation (e.g. US process standards in [26]).
These competencies relate to the previously mentioned rich tasks because ‘it seems natural
to focus on the competencies involved in posing and answering different sorts of ques-
tions pertinent to mathematics in different settings, contexts and situations’ [25,p.39]. This
approach with eight mathematical competences was incorporated into the PISA framework
for mathematical literacy [27]. The PISA framework influenced many national curricula for
mathematics including the German curriculum [28] which includes six mathematical com-
petencies: mathematical argumentation, problem solving, mathematical modelling, mathe-
matical representation, communication, and the handling of symbolic, formal and technical
elements of mathematics. Further, the Austrian standards for mathematics [29] contain four
‘mathematical activities’: representations and modelling, calculation and operation, inter-
pretation, and argumentation and reasoning. Common to every framework is the emphasis
on ‘what it takes to do mathematics’ [25,p.42].
Besides finding the context, answer form and cognitive requirements in textbook tasks
[16,19,20], this study also includes the idea of finding what students are expected do in a
textbook task and which mathematical activity [29] must be performed to solve the task
successfully.

2.3. Research questions

The aim of this study is to compose a multidimensional framework including an activity
dimension in order to evaluate the requirements in mathematics textbook tasks. Related
to that, two research questions are formed for this study: To what extent do the textbooks
offer the full range of task types? How can implementation of the activities dimension into
the framework help in understanding the demands of the textbook tasks?

3. Theoretical framework
In order to examine the requirements in textbook tasks in this study, a 5D framework was
established. It consists of the following aspects: content, mathematical activities, complexity
levels, answer forms and contextual features. This type of multidimensional framework
required a combination of two theoretical sources: the Austrian educational standards [29]
6 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

Dimension
Content Activity Complexity Answer Contextual
levels form features

Development Development
of contextual
Process
of answer
forms features

Austrian standards [29]: Zhu & Fan [19]:

Framework for analysing US and
Source

Three-dimensional model of mathematical Chinese textbooks (Routine,

competencies (Content, Activities, Complexity Answer Form, Application,
levels) Traditional task)

Figure . Five-dimensional framework outline (content, activities, complexity levels, answer forms and
contextual features).

and the framework by Zhu and Fan [19]. The Austrian educational standards [29] provide
the theoretical framework for content, mathematical activities and complexity levels as given
in Section 3.1, while the dimensions of answer forms and contextual features lean on the
study presented in Zhu and Fan [19] and are given in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. The aspects from
Austrian educational standards are taken as they are given in the original source, while the
aspects of answer forms and contextual features are further developed and modified for
the purposes of the research presented in this paper. The theoretical framework outline is
presented in Figure 1.
The three main research dimensions are taken from the Austrian standards because dur-
ing the preparation of this study Croatia was in the process of putting together the new
curriculum framework and the new Austrian standards were one of the documents which
were considered an important possible influence. The reason for this is that in the past the
two countries have shared similar educational traditions and the Austrian standards offered
a new concept of mathematical competence which could also be interesting for reflecting
on mathematics education in the region.

3.1. Competence model: content, activities and complexity

The Austrian standards provide a 3D model of mathematical competencies: competency
is described as a long-term disposable cognitive ability which can be developed by the
learner and which enables the learner to practice various activities and skills and to apply
them. Further, mathematical competencies refer to mathematical activities, to mathemat-
ical content and to the complexity level of the connections required. According to the
Austrian standards, mathematical competencies have an activity dimension (Handlung),
a content dimension (Inhalt) and a complexity dimension (Komplexität). In this way, a spe-
cific mathematical competence could be defined and described through a triple (content,
activity, complexity). For example, the triple (functions, interpretation, connections) refers
to a mathematical competence where a student is able to interpret graphical representations
of functional dependences, in which some facts/relations/representations/activities should
be connected. The following three subsections contain descriptions of the three mentioned
dimensions.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

... Content
The content requirements refer to finding out what mathematical knowledge a student
should possess in order to solve a particular textbook task. The content field of the
Austrian standards is divided into: numbers and measures (coded as I1); variables and
functional dependences (I2); geometric shapes and solids (I3); and statistic representations
and parameters (I4). These content fields follow the current national curriculum for the
lower secondary level of mathematical education. Numbers and measurements encompass
integers, rational and irrational numbers, arithmetic operations and measurement units.
Variables and functional dependences involve terms and formulas, equations and linear
equation systems, proportionality and linear and quadratic function. Geometric shapes and
solids refer to 2D and 3D shapes, similarity, isometric functions in the plane, Pythagorean
theorem, circumference, area, surface area and volume of geometric shapes. In this frame-
work, the statistics content refers to representations of statistical data, probability and ran-
dom event.

... Mathematical activities

The mathematical activities field is divided into: representations and modelling; calcu-
lation and operation; interpretation; and argumentation and reasoning. Representation
(H1) concerns ‘translation’ of the given mathematical data into another mathematical
representation (for example, transmissions from one statistical representation to another).
Modelling involves recognizing relevant mathematical relationships from the given situ-
ation and representing the same problem in a mathematical mode (symbolic, graphical,
etc.). Calculation (H2) concerns conducting elementary computation operations with con-
crete or generalized numbers. Operation is the concrete, sensible and efficient conducting
of computational or constructional steps. It also refers to transforming measure units,
transforming mathematical expressions, solving equations, estimating results, approxima-
tions and conducting elementary geometrical constructions. Interpretation (H3) concerns
recognizing relations and relevant data given in the mathematical representations (graph-
ical, symbolical and tabular) and their interpretation in the given context. Interpreting
includes appropriate reading of the graphical or symbolical mathematical representations
and their interpretation in the given context. Argumentation (H4) refers to the description
of mathematical aspects that speak pro or contra a particular decision. It requires concrete
and appropriate implementation of mathematical relations and characteristics, mathemat-
ical rules, as well as the correct usage of mathematical language. Reasoning concerns the
sequence of true arguments that lead to a conclusion.
For example, Table 1 gives a geometry task requiring various mathematical activities.

Table . Examples of four mathematical activities.

Mathematical activity Example
H A cylinder-shaped barrel is ½ filled with water. The height of the barrel is  cm. Its
Representation base has a diameter of  cm. Construct its base using a scale :.
H A cylinder-shaped barrel is ½ filled with water. Barrel height is  cm. Its base has a
Computation and operation diameter of  cm. Find the volume of water in the barrel and express it in litres.
H A cylinder-shaped barrel is ½ filled with water. The height of the barrel is  cm. Its
82 2
Interpretation base has a diameter of  cm. What is expressed with the formula ( 2 ) ·π ?
H A cylinder-shaped barrel is ½ filled with water. The height of the barrel is  cm. Its
Argumentation base has a diameter of  cm. Does the height of water in the barrel influence the
surface area of the barrel? Explain your opinion.
8 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

Various examples of each activity mentioned can be found in the Austrian standards
[29].

... Complexity levels

The complexity field is divided into: direct application of basic knowledge and skills;
constructing and dealing with connections; reflection or applying reflective knowledge.
Namely, the content and activities themselves are not enough to identify the competences
required from students in a particular textbook task. Some mathematical tasks could have
the same content (for example, the circle), and the same activity (for example, calculation),
but they could differ in terms of cognitive complexity. For example, one task could require
skills on the reproduction complexity level, while another might require the construction of
more complex connections. Applying basic knowledge and skills (K1) encompasses repro-
duction or direct application of mathematical concepts, rules, procedures and representa-
tions. Making connections (K2) and dealing with connections refer to more complex tasks
where several concepts or activities are required to be combined in order to solve the prob-
lem. It encompasses, for example, making connections between a variety of terms, theo-
rems, methods and representations. Reflective thinking (K3) involves reflecting on mathe-
matical ideas that are not directly readable from the given problem. Reflective knowledge
means applying creative knowledge about mathematics. For example, Table 2 gives exam-
ples with various complexity levels.

Table . Examples of different complexity levels.

K Write the decimal . as a fraction.
Reproduction
K Ana pours / of a litre of milk into the measuring jug shown below. Mark the height of the milk in
Connections the measuring jug.

K Sometimes it is more appropriate to express rational numbers as fractions, and sometimes as

Reflection decimals. Give two examples of when people would use fractions, and two examples of when
people would use decimals. Explain your answer.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9

Forty-eight mathematical competencies are described in this manner because it is the

number of possible triples (I, H, K). The Austrian standards provide worked examples of
all 48 competencies [29].

3.2. Answer forms

In their study of textbook problem types, Zhu and Fan [19] distinguish open-ended and
closed-ended tasks. Open-ended tasks refer to tasks with several or many correct answers,
while closed-ended tasks have only one answer. The PISA 2003 Framework [27] distin-
guishes closed constructed response, open constructed response and multiple-choice. The
closed constructed response can be easily judged as either correct or incorrect. Multiple
choice problems offer ‘a limited number of defined response-options’ [27,p.51]. For exam-
ple, Table 3 gives examples with various answer forms.
Table . Examples of different answer forms.
A Solve the equation: 2x + 6 = 12
Closed-ended
A Write a problem from everyday life which refers to solving the equation
Open-ended 2x + 6 = 12 .
A What is the solution of the equation 2x + 6 = 12 ?
Multiple choice A. x = ; B. x = ; C. x = –; D. x = –

3.3. Contextual features

Contextual features refer to what extent, and in which ways, real-world experiences are
incorporated into the (textbook) tasks. In their research, Zhu and Fan [19] distinguish
between application and non-application problems in mathematics textbooks. A non-
application problem is unrelated to the real world, while an application problem arises in
the context of a real-life situation. Application problems can be fictitious or authentic. The
fictitious application problems contain data made up by the textbook author. The authen-
tic problems contain real-life situations or data ‘collected by students themselves from their
daily lives’ [19,p.614]. Sullivan et al. [11] discuss contextualized tasks which are related to
students’ experiences. Such tasks ‘have great potential for challenging and engaging stu-
dents, and showing how mathematics can help them to make sense of the world’ [11 ,p.42].
Table 4 gives examples with various contextual features.
Table . Examples of different contextual features.
3
C Write the fraction 5 as a percentage.
Intra-mathematical context
(non-application tasks)
C A student counted that on Monday from  to  pm  cars,  vans,  motorbikes
Realistic (fictitious) context and  bus passed in front of his school. Show these data using a relative
frequency table.
C Count the vehicles in front of your school and make a relative frequency table
Authentic context of motorbikes, cars, buses and vans.

4. Method
The examined textbooks were Croatian mathematics textbooks for grades 6, 7 and 8, which
correspond to the ages 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Since this study was part of a wider
10 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

Table . Instrument for textbook analysis.

Dimension Question Details and codes
Mathematical content What content must a student know to Numbers and measurements (I)
perform a particular task? Algebra, variables and functional dependences (I)
Geometric shapes and solids (I)
Descriptive statistics and probability (I)
Mathematical activity What mathematical activities should Representations and modelling (H)
be performed to carry out the task Calculation and operation (H)
successfully? Interpretation (H)
Argumentation and reasoning (H)
Complexity level What is the complexity of knowledge Direct application of basic knowledge and skills (K)
and activities that a student needs in Constructing and dealing with connections (K)
order to perform the task? Reflection or applying reflective knowledge (K)
Answer form What answer form does the task Closed answer (A)
require? Open answer (A)
Multiple choice (A)
Context What is the context in the task? Intra-mathematical situation (C)
Realistic context (C)
Authentic context (C)

research [30] connected to the comparison of the PISA requirements and mathematical
competencies required in school, grades 6, 7 and 8 were included because of their impor-
tance in developing the mathematical competencies important for the upper secondary
levels.
Each textbook task was examined in order to identify categories it requires (content,
activity, complexity level, answer form and context, as shown in Tables 1–4). These cate-
gories are derived from theoretical background and research questions. Within each cate-
gory, the particular task was given a code according to Table 5. For this purpose, a qualitative
approach was needed [31] because the meaning of the text revealed the code (for exam-
ple, in finding the complexity level). A qualitative approach was accomplished through the
qualitative content analysis method [31].

4.1. Sampling
In this study, all examined items are called tasks [10]; the word ‘task’ covers all situations
that require an answer in the textbooks, no matter if the solution is given or not. These are
mostly exercises, but also worked examples, revision tasks and other questions. The study
encompassed all the tasks from the two most frequently used mathematics textbook series
in Croatia for grades 6, 7 and 8. In each grade, the two textbook series examined were used
by more than half of the total student population in Croatia of that grade. Altogether, the
study encompassed more than 22,000 textbook tasks. For the purposes of the study the two
textbook series will be referred to as textbook A and textbook B.

4.2. Instrument for textbook analysis

Based on the theoretical background, the following five classifications of tasks are estab-
lished and developed in the study (Table 5).

... Content
Mathematical content refers to the content from the Austrian standards. Since the con-
tent of the Austrian standards does not completely correspond to the Croatian curriculum
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11

content the requirements were slightly modified for the purposes of this study. For example,
the Austrian curriculum and standards include more topics within descriptive statistics and
probability than the current Croatian curriculum. Therefore, this study focused on topics
included in the Croatian curriculum and textbooks: graphical data representations, arith-
metic mean and probability of a random event.

... Mathematical activities

The four main mathematical activities which should be performed in order to carry out a
particular task successfully are Representations and Modelling, Calculation and Operation,
Interpretation, and Argumentation and Reasoning. They are described in Chapter 3 of this
paper. For example, the following task requires calculation activities: 6 + 9 − 12 × 3. And
the following textbook task requires representation activities: ‘Construct two obtuse angles
with parallel arms, respectively.’ Some tasks required more than one activity or content. In
that case, the activity or content which was considered dominant in performing the task was
chosen and coded. In cases where two activities are required in equal measure to perform
the task, they were both coded and included in the analysis.

... Complexity level

The complexity of knowledge and activities that a student needs in order to perform a
task can be put on three levels. These are: direct application of basic knowledge and skills
(level 1); constructing and dealing with connections (level 2); and reflection or applying
reflective knowledge (level 3). They are described in Chapter 3 of this paper and more in-
depth in the Austrian standards [29].

... Answer form

In this study, three answer forms were distinguished. These are closed answer, open answer
and multiple choice. Multiple-choice tasks offer a limited number of already defined
responses. Closed answer tasks require one correct (usually short) answer. Open answer
tasks require a more free expression of students’ ideas about mathematics. Closed answer
tasks put more emphasis on the final solution, while open answer tasks are more concerned
with the process and the way of solving a particular task.

... Context type

Within this research, the term authentic context means that the task situation is taken from
authentic reality or from the authentic experience of the student. For example, the textbook
task ‘Count the vehicles in front of the school and make a relative frequency table of motor-
bikes, cars, buses and vans’ deals with an authentic situation. Realistic context encompasses
situations with simulated reality. An intra-mathematical situation refers to mathematical
tasks without context. Such tasks contain the relevant data represented in mathematical
notation (symbolic, graphical, etc.) and use specific mathematical terms.
These classifications make up the instrument for textbook analysis (Table 5).

4.3. Task examples and exemplary analysis

This section presents two tasks from the analyzed mathematics textbooks. They are fol-
lowed by the analysis according to the 5D framework.
12 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

Example 1: ‘Write the number 3/100 as decimal number and as percentage.’ This task
refers to the content of numbers (Table 5). This requires representation activities because
the given fraction should be represented with two other representations of a rational num-
ber. The task is put on the lowest complexity level (direct application of basic knowledge
and skills). The required answer is closed and the task is intra-mathematical.
Example 2: ‘Find the circumference of the isosceles triangle ABC with the leg b = 73 cm
and the base height h = 55 cm.’ This task refers to the content of geometry and requires
computation activities. This requires using the Pythagorean Theorem and connecting it to
the knowledge of the isosceles triangle and its circumference; therefore, it is on the complex-
ity level of connections. The required answer is closed and the task is intra-mathematical
(Table 5).

4.4. Procedure
The analysis of all the tasks in the selected textbooks was conducted using the framework
described above. Each of the 22,168 tasks was examined according to the 5D instrument and
then coded into the corresponding category. Since this study was part of a wider doctoral
research [30], the accuracy and reliability of coding was ensured by checking samples of the
tasks with the thesis mentors who were creators of and experts on the Austrian standards.
To ensure the consistency of the framework application across such a huge number of tasks,
the analysis was conducted in steps over 9 months. Each step was followed by the checking
of samples. In addition, discussions with the mentors were especially valuable in coding
some of the more problematic and equivocal tasks.
The next step was to analyze the coding results using quantitative methods, which
encompassed finding the relative frequencies of codes within a specific mathematical topic.
For this purpose, the SPSS program was used.

5. Results
The results are presented in five main sections, which follow the five dimensions of the
framework.

5.1. Content
All school textbooks in Croatia are approved by an expert group appointed by the Minister
of Education, with the purpose of ensuring that the textbook content matches the curric-
ular requirements. Although this section is about content findings, they cannot be fully
separated from other aspects of the framework (Tables 6–13).

... Numbers and measurements

Learning about numbers in grade 6 in Croatia encompasses the topics: Integers, Fractions,
and Set Q [32]. Percentages are taught in grade 7, and the topic Irrational Numbers in
grade 8. Table 6 presents the proportions of task features in textbook A, and Table 7 refers
to textbook B.
Every line in Tables 6 and 7 refers to a topic which is presented as a chapter in the text-
books. For example, textbook A encompassed 943 tasks in the topic Integers in grade 6.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13

Table . Requirements in ‘Numbers and Measurements’ chapters of textbook A.

Topic H H H H K K K CA IM
G (no. of tasks) in % in %
 Integers ()         
 Fractions ()         
 Set Q ()         
 Percentages ()         
 Square, square root ()         
 Set R ()         
Legend: G: grade; H: representations, H: calculation, H: interpretation, H: argumentation; K: reproduction, K:
connections, K: reflection; CA: closed answer required; IM: intra-mathematical context.

Table . Requirements in ‘Numbers and Measurements’ chapters of textbook B.

Topic H H H H K K K CA IM
G (no. of tasks) in % in %
 Integers ()         
 Fractions ()         
 Set Q ()         
 Percentages ()         
 Square, square root ()         
 Set R ()         
Legend: G: grade; H: representations, H: calculation, H: interpretation, H: argumentation; K: reproduction, K:
connections, K: reflection; CA: closed answer required; IM: intra-mathematical context.

Table 6 shows that 4% of these 943 tasks required students to represent integers, usually
on the number line. 95% of all items required calculation activities with integers, 3% of
items required interpreting a given picture or mathematical formula, while none of the 943
items required argumentation or reasoning activities. Similar results are obtained in text-
book series B (Table 7). The activities aspect does not add up to 100% because some of the
tasks required more than one activity. Further, the results presented in Tables 6 and 7 show
that about 90% of all integer tasks require low cognitive demands (K1) and that almost all
tasks include intra-mathematical situations (IM) with integers (96% in textbook A and 97%
in textbook B).
Focusing on the mathematical activities in the topics of numbers and measurements
(Tables 6 and 7) the results show that textbook requirements emphasize operation activ-
ities and calculation techniques in arithmetic education. The findings point to a lack of
presentation, interpretation and above all argumentation activities about numbers. Only
the topic ‘Percentages’ significantly requires representation activities in the tasks (44% in
textbook A and 36% in textbook B, Tables 6 and 7). These tasks refer to translation from
one representation of rational number to another. The interpretation activities in the topic
‘Set R’ are represented with 35% in textbook A and 28% in textbook B. These activities are
to do with observing decimal notation of rational and irrational numbers and comparing
them.
In the topic ‘Numbers’ the level of the activities is reproductive or simpler connections,
higher cognitive activities such as reflective thinking are not encouraged in the topics Num-
bers and Measurements. Also, all the textbook tasks in this topic are of the closed answer
type. Intra-mathematical tasks dominate in textbooks, even within topics which have a
strong connection to everyday life, such as fractions and percentages. The results in rela-
tion to the topic ‘Numbers’ indicate that the emphasis is on symbolic tasks and on following
rules for operations.
14 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

... Algebra, Variables and Functional Dependences

The content on Algebra, Variables and Functional Dependences in grades 6–8 comprises
the topics of equations, direct and indirect proportionality, algebraic terms and linear func-
tion [32]. Tables 8 and 9 present the proportions of task features in textbooks A and B,
respectively.

Table . Requirements in ‘Functions and Algebra’ chapters of textbook A.

Topic H H H H K K K CA IM
G (no. of tasks) in % in %
 Equations ()         
 Equation systems ()         
 Equat. x = a ()         
 Proportionality ()         
 Terms ()         
 Linear func. ()         
Legend: G: grade; H: representations, H: calculation, H: interpretation, H: argumentation; K: reproduction, K:
connections, K: reflection; CA: closed answer required; IM: intra-mathematical context.

Table . Requirements in ‘Functions and Algebra’ chapters of textbook B.

Topic H H H H K K K CA IM
G (no. of tasks) in % in %
 Equations ()         
 Equation syst. ()         
 Equat. x = a ()         
 Proportionality ()         
 Terms ()         
 Linear func. ()         
Legend: G: grade; H: representations, H: calculation, H: interpretation, H: argumentation; K: reproduction, K:
connections, K: reflection; CA: closed answer required; IM: intra-mathematical context.

The results indicate high proportions of calculation and operation activities in the exam-
ined tasks, on the symbolic level and requiring closed answers (Tables 8 and 9). Interpreta-
tive, argumentative and reflective skills are not required from students in the topics Algebra
and Functional Dependences.
The topic ‘Equations’ encompasses linear equations with a single variable, the system
of two linear equations with two variables and a simple quadratic equation x2 = a. The
textbook tasks in these areas focus on intra-mathematical calculation tasks, without using
authentic tasks or the idea of equivalent equations. Linear equations and equation systems,
apart from 100% of operation and calculation activities, also require representations in
10%–20% of tasks. This means that in the textual tasks students should express the given
problem in a symbolic way with an equation or equation system.
The chapters on linear function require representations in about one third of tasks, cal-
culations in two thirds of tasks in textbook A and in about half of the tasks in textbook
B, and interpretation activities in about one third of tasks. The required activities in lin-
ear function comprise of drawing a graph of a linear function given in a symbolic form
(representation activities), calculating function value for given argument x (calculation),
or reading the values from a given graph (interpretation).
Functions and algebra frequently use symbolic tasks, except for the topic of direct and
indirect proportionality. This topic places more emphasis on exercises with realistic or
authentic contexts. In textbook A, 78% of 283 examined tasks had realistic context (Table 8).
Similarly, in textbook B, 72% of 482 examined proportionality tasks had realistic or
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15

authentic context (Table 9). These results indicate that the textbook authors extensively
used the context-oriented tasks in this topic. Although the topic of proportionality may
be included in arithmetic (Numbers), its approach in Croatian textbooks and curriculum
is more algebraic, meaning it is included in the content of functional dependences in the
results.

... Geometric shapes and solids

The geometry content in grades 6–8 encompasses the topics Triangle and Quadrilateral in
grade 6, Polygons, Circle and Similarity of Triangles in grade 7, and Pythagorean Theorem,
Plane Isometries, Relationships of the lines in space, and Geometric Solids in grade 8 [32].
Tables 10 and 11 present the proportions of task features in textbooks A and B, respectively.

Table . Requirements in ‘Geometry’ chapters of textbook A.

Topic H H H H K K K CA IM
G (no. of tasks) in % in %
 Triangle ()         
 Quadrilateral ()         
 Polygons ()         
 Circle ()         
 Similarity()         
 Pythagorean theorem ()         
 Isometries ()         
 Lines, space ()         
 Geom. solids ()         
Legend: G: grade; H: representations, H: calculation, H: interpretation, H: argumentation; K: reproduction, K:
connections, K: reflection; CA: closed answer required; IM: intra-mathematical context.

Table . Requirements in ‘Geometry’ chapters of textbook B.

G Topic (no. of tasks) H H H H K K K CA IM
 Triangle ()         
 Quadrilateral ()         
 Polygons ()         
 Circle ()         
 Similarity ()         
 Pythagorean theorem ()         
 Isometries()         
 Lines, space ()         
 Geom. solids ()         
Legend: G: grade; H: representations, H: calculation, H: interpretation, H: argumentation; K: reproduction, K:
connections, K: reflection; CA: closed answer required; IM: intra-mathematical context.

The results show that geometry tasks mostly focus on reproduction, simple connections,
closed answers and intra-mathematical requirements. In terms of activities, the results show
an emphasis on routines in calculating or constructing activities. Presentation activities
refer to sketching or constructing a geometric picture, while interpretation activities consist
of reading data from a given or constructed picture. Also, the results showed a deficit of
argumentation activities and open answers. In terms of the complexity level, there is a clear
lack of reflective thinking requirements.
The textbook chapters on Pythagorean Theorem show that the task requirements put
strong emphasis on operation and calculation activities (Table 10 and 11). The Pythagorean
Theorem is introduced in the 8th grade after students have been taught square roots [32].
Textbook A offered 723 tasks, and textbook B 797 tasks within this topic. More than 90%
of them required calculation and only 13% required interpretation of a given picture. This
16 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

means that the tasks mostly cover two values in the textual form, and students are supposed
to find (compute) the length of the third side of a right-angled triangle. Although the impor-
tance of the Pythagorean Theorem has always been in its implementation to problems from
everyday life, the results show the Pythagorean Theorem presented as a rule applicable in
the pure intra-mathematical objects (98% in textbook A and 91% in textbook B).
The topic Isometric Mappings in the Plane puts emphasis on representation activities:
conducting translation, rotation or reflection of a given geometric object, including the
composition of these mappings. The topic Relationship of lines in space consists of many
tasks with a given picture where students have to recognize (interpret) the relationship
between two marked geometric objects (e.g. a plane and a line which are parallel). Most
of the tasks in this chapter have low cognitive demands.
As in other content topics, argumentation activities, open answers and reflection are not
required in the geometry chapters. Still, the topic Similar Triangles in grade 7 encompasses
15% tasks of textbook B which require argumentation activities. These tasks offer a picture
of two triangles whose corresponding sides are in the same ratio or whose angles are equal.
Students are supposed to prove that the two given triangles are similar using the appropriate
similarity postulates.
In comparison to the results of Numbers and Algebra, the Geometry tasks require
more representation and interpretation activities, but computation and operation
activities remain the most frequent activities in the chapters on geometric shapes and solids
in mathematics textbooks.

... Descriptive statistics and probability

According to the Croatian curriculum [32], statistics and probability are taught only in the
7th grade and to a very limited extent. Statistics encompasses graphical data representa-
tions, frequencies and arithmetic mean, while probability refers to the probability of a ran-
dom event. The results of textbook requirements within these topics are given in Tables 12
and 13.
Table . Requirements in ‘Descriptive Statistics and Probability’ chapters of textbook A.
Topic H H H H K K K CA IM
G (no. of tasks) in % in %
 Statistics ()         
 Probability ()         
Legend: G: grade; H: representations, H: calculation, H: interpretation, H: argumentation; K: reproduction, K:
connections, K: reflection; CA: closed answer required; IM: intra-mathematical context.

Table . Requirements in ‘Descriptive Statistics and Probability’ chapters of textbook B.

Topic H H H H K K K CA IM
G (no. of tasks) in % in %
 Statistics ()         
 Probability ()         
Legend: G: grade; H: representations, H: calculation, H: interpretation, H: argumentation; K: reproduction, K:
connections, K: reflection; CA: closed answer required; IM: intra-mathematical context.

About two thirds of tasks within the chapters on statistics in both of the textbooks require
calculation activities. This can be explained by the fact that the main requirement of the
topic Arithmetic mean is to calculate the average of given numerical data. One third of
tasks refers to representation of data, and one third to interpretation of a given data table
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 17

or graph. The situation is similar for the statistics chapters in textbooks A and B, but in
the topic of probability there are significant differences between the two textbooks. Text-
book B requires only calculations, while textbook A has representation activities in one
quarter of its tasks. Both textbooks favour low cognitive levels and closed answer forms
in the tasks. Again, argumentation and reasoning skills, open answer forms and reflective
thinking are not represented to a great extent in mathematics textbooks in statistics and
probability education in Croatia. However, there are more realistic context exercises than
intra-mathematical ones in the descriptive statistics and probability topics.

5.2. Activities
In general, the results show that textbook tasks require mainly calculation activities with
numbers and terms, as well as operations such as conducting geometric constructions
(Tables 6–13). They are predominant in all the topics analyzed except for Space Relation-
ships and Isometric Mappings. The chapters on equations require calculation activities in
100% of the tasks in all the textbooks examined. The traditional geometry topics such as
plane shapes or solids predominantly require operational or computational skills of calcu-
lating circumferences, areas, volumes or surface areas. This implies that geometry is actually
quickly switched to dealing with numbers or algebraic terms.
The results presented in Tables 6–13 show that argumentation and reasoning activities
are not present in Croatian mathematics textbooks at all. Only the chapters on triangle
similarity contain exercises requiring argumentation skills (in 15% of tasks in one textbook,
and in 7% of tasks in the other). They refer to explaining (proving) the similarity of two
triangles using the similarity theorems.

5.3. Complexity levels

Since there are no complexity requirements laid out in the Croatian program for mathe-
matics [32], the extent of competency required in textbook tasks depends mainly on the
authors. The analysis shows that the textbook tasks are on the reproductive or simpler con-
nections level (Tables 6–13). There are no reflective thinking activities in the textbook tasks.

5.4. Answer forms

The textbook analysis results indicate the predominance of closed answer tasks in all math-
ematics topics. In most of the topics, the proportion of required closed answers is more than
97%. The lack of argumentation activities shown in the previous section is closely connected
with this issue. Also, multiple choice questions are not common in Croatian mathematics
textbooks.

5.5. Context
The results indicate the usage of intra-mathematical tasks to a huge extent (more than 88%
in almost all topics). Only the research results for descriptive statistics, probability and pro-
portionality show a higher proportion of realistic contexts.
18 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

6. Discussion and conclusions

6.1. Task design

The research results in general show that there is no balance between different task types.
The textbook tasks are found to be computational, intra-mathematical, with low-level cog-
nitive demands and are closed. The authentic context, open-answer tasks and reflective
thinking skills are not required at all in the researched textbooks. According to the analysis
conducted in [30], these results are not in accordance with the Croatian national mathe-
matics requirements [32] which contain the following educational achievements: to apply
mathematics in everyday life, to determine which method is most efficient in reaching the
solution, to think about the solution and to discuss it [32,p.230]. These achievements point
directly to authentic tasks and reflective thinking, but rich tasks as described in [13] are
barely present in the examined textbooks.
The lower cognitive expectations are generally in line with other studies of textbook
tasks, as shown in Section 2.1 [19,20,22]. For example, the results on requirements about
integers correspond to the findings of Li [20] in Chinese and US textbooks. As in the Chi-
nese textbooks, none (0%) of all examined integer tasks required argumentation or explana-
tions. Also, the emphasis on computational procedures in the chapters on proportionality
is in line with the results by Dole and Shield [22] on proportional reasoning in Australian
textbooks. The focus on lower cognitive levels matches similar results obtained in studies
reported in [16,23,24]. In most textbook topics, intra-mathematical tasks are predominant.
Realistic context predominates in only three topics: descriptive statistics, probability and
proportionality. These results could in part explain the poor Croatian results on the PISA
assessment [33], as the PISA mathematical literacy puts emphasis on solving problems in
various situations in order ‘to identify and understand the role that mathematics plays in
the world’ [27,p.24].
The emphasis on performing a large amount of tasks can also be seen in the results of the
study presented in this paper. The tables in Section 5 also include the number of textbook
tasks per particular topic. The analysis revealed a huge number of tasks within each text-
book (about 4000). If we were to do them all within 140 school lessons per year, it would
total an average of about 30 textbook tasks per one lesson unit. This finding corresponds
to the predominance of simple tasks in textbooks because simple tasks require less time to
solve. It is also interesting to note that the tasks in the study do not become more complex
as the students move up from grades 6 to 8.
The findings highlight the difficulties in designing tasks, particularly tasks given in such
extensively used curriculum resources as textbooks. The issues concerning task design are
currently being recognized as an interesting and important area within the research on
mathematics education [11] because the textbook requirements influence implemented
curriculum and students’ opportunities to learn [34,35]. A better implementation of rich
tasks [11,13] would encourage the use of authentic context, open tasks or tasks which
develop thinking in a variety of styles. This may influence the students’ image of math-
ematics because the tasks help students to create opportunities which can broaden or
limit their views of mathematics [11,12]. The relationship of textbook task features, enacted
mathematics curriculum and student’s image about mathematics is an idea for further
research.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 19

6.2. Discussion on mathematical activities

Incorporating an activities dimension into the analysis of textbook tasks contributed to a
better understanding of the learning opportunities afforded to students through the use of
mathematics textbooks. The applied framework showed the dominance of just one activity,
while Niss’s competency approach [25] refers to a wide range of mathematical competences.
Related to that, the results presented in this paper may suggest that, according to the text-
book requirements, a mathematically competent student only needs to be effective in com-
putation. For example, this study revealed an interesting result about geometry education
in Croatia. Most of the geometry topics put emphasis on calculation or operation activi-
ties (Tables 10 and 11), which means that the geometry tasks predominantly require the
ability to deal with numbers, formulas and terms instead of mastering geometric concepts.
This leads to the question of what picture of geometry our students get; what is geom-
etry to them? A set of computation procedures? The aims of geometry education would
seem to be much broader than that [36,37]. Therefore, different mathematical activities
presented within the textbook tasks would challenge students and help them in developing
their understanding.
These results imply the importance of incorporating the mathematical activities dimen-
sion into national mathematical curricula, with the aim of encouraging textbook authors
and teachers to implement tasks with presentation and modelling, interpretation, argu-
mentation and reasoning activities into mathematics education. The current Croatian cur-
riculum for mathematics [32] does not contain such outlines for competences or activities
[30].

6.3. Future research and international implications

The results of the study presented in this paper shows the dominance of one activity (com-
putation), one answer form (closed answer) and one context type (intra-mathematical)
in tasks. Also, the previous survey [7] showed that the teachers are satisfied with these
textbooks as such. These findings suggest a traditional view on mathematics and teach-
ing mathematics in Croatia from both teachers and textbook authors, which is in line with
the results of an empirical research about teachers’ perceptions of mathematics education
[38] which showed ‘that the traditional approach and traditional teaching methods pre-
vail’ [38,p.96] in Croatian mathematics classrooms. In general, the findings of the study
presented in this paper together with the above-mentioned previous studies [7,38] indicate
that mathematics education in Croatia emphasizes the view of ‘mathematics as a tool’ rather
than as a ‘medium of communication’ [39]. These conclusions have raised new issues for
further research and raise a question about the students’ perspective: How do the domi-
nant textbook task features influence students’ image of mathematics and their mathemat-
ical competencies? Another issue relates to the question: What is happening in classroom
practice regarding the use of textbook tasks – are they being used directly as they are, or
are teachers modifying them or combining them with tasks from other resources? Fur-
ther to this, another issue for future research relates to the challenge of modifying current
textbook tasks in order to create more rich tasks. The thorough analysis of textbook tasks
revealed many interesting exercises and examples. Although they are characterized as intra-
mathematical, computational or closed, many of these tasks are seen as interesting because
20 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

they have the potential to be easily modified to create rich tasks. For example, some of
them could be transformed from closed answer to open answer tasks with the addition of
questions such as ‘Why? Can you explain it?’ In others, the predominating computation
requirement could be modified into another activity. These modifications present ideas for
further studies, including stating design principles, developing a variety of rich tasks and
intervention in the classroom. Related to this idea, the results indicate that it would be
worthwhile gaining further insight into teachers’ beliefs and expectations of the textbook
content, because if the aim is to change classroom practice, then teachers’ attitudes is a very
important issue.
With regard to the international context, the research presented in this paper highlights
the significance and complexity of textbook task design and analysis in general. The mul-
tidimensional framework proved to be a powerful analytical tool for identifying students’
opportunities to learn. The provision of a balance of different task types in textbooks and
other curriculum materials, including providing more rich tasks, may be of interest to cur-
riculum developers and researchers all over the world. The idea of embedding the dimen-
sion of mathematical activities, a domain which refers to what a student needs to do in a
particular task, can be implemented in textbook analyzes worldwide, with the aim of better
understanding national or international curriculum requirements and to gain insights into
the opportunities to learn which students have in different countries. In this way, the results
of textbook task analyses may help explain the differences in the performance of different
countries in international student assessments, such as PISA or TIMSS.
The literature review showed that the textbook tasks in many countries predomi-
nantly require low cognitive demands. Correspondingly, it would be interesting to find out
whether similar mathematical activities predominate in textbooks from different countries,
and to what extent these correlate with the results from large-scale studies. For example, the
findings on the high proportion of calculation and operation activities in geometry chap-
ters raise a question about the required activities in geometry in textbooks in other coun-
tries. In this way, the results obtained in this study may contribute to the global discus-
sion about the issues on contemporary geometry education and tendencies in mathematics
education.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Prof Dr Edith Schneider and Prof Dr Werner Peschek
from the Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik – Austrian Educational Competence Centre,
Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt for all their helpful suggestions and discussions during
the coding and analysing process.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID
Dubravka Glasnovic Gracin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5195-4873
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 21

References
[1] Fan L. Textbook research as scientific research: towards a common ground on issues and meth-
ods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM Math Educ. 2013;45(5):765–777.
[2] Fan L, Zhu Y, Miao Z. Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and
directions. ZDM Math Educ. 2013;45(5):633–646.
[3] Hopf D. Mathematikunterricht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Didaktik und Unter-
richtsmethode in der 7. Klasse des Gymnasiums [Mathematics education: an empirical study
in the 7th grade of grammar school]. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta; 1980. German.
[4] Pepin B, Haggarty L. Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and
German classrooms: a way to understand teaching and learning cultures. ZDM Math Educ.
2001;33(5):158–175.
[5] Robitaille DF, Garden RA, editors. The IEA study of mathematics II: context and outcomes of
school mathematics. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1989.
[6] Valverde GA, Bianchi LJ, Wolfe RG, et al. According to the book: using TIMSS to investigate
the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers; 2002.
[7] Glasnovic Gracin D, Domovic V. Upotreba matematičkih udžbenika u nastavi viših razreda
osnovne škole [Using maths textbooks in lower secondary education]. Odgoj Znan.
2009;11:297–317. Croatian.
[8] Howson G. Mathematics textbooks: a comparative study of grade 8 texts. TIMSS monograph
no. 3. Vancouver (BC): Pacific Educational Press; 1995.
[9] Usiskin Z. Studying textbooks in an information age – a United States perspective. ZDM Math
Educ. 2013;45(5):713–723.
[10] Mason J, Johnston-Wilder S. Fundamental constructs in mathematics education. London:
Routledge; 2004.
[11] Sullivan P, Clarke DM, Clarke BA. Teaching with tasks for effective mathematics learning. New
York (NY): Springer; 2013.
[12] Henningsen M, Stein M. Mathematical tasks and student’s cognition: classroom-based factors
that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. J Res Math Educ.
1997;28:524–549.
[13] Stenmark JK, editor. Mathematics assessment: myths, models, good questions, and practical
suggestions. Reston (VA): National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; 1991.
[14] Smith MP, Stein MK. Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: from research to practice.
Math Middle Sch. 1998;3(5):344–350.
[15] Doyle W. Work in mathematics classes: the content of student thinking during instruction.
Educ Psychol. 1998;23(2):167–180.
[16] Vincent J, Stacey K. Do mathematics textbooks cultivate shallow teaching? Applying the TIMSS
video study criteria to Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Math Educ Res J.
2008;20(1):82–107.
[17] Keitel C, Otte M, Seeger F. Text, Wissen, Tätigkeit: Das Schulbuch im Mathematikunterricht
[Text, knowledge, action: the textbook in mathematics education]. Königstein/Ts: Scriptor;
1980. German.
[18] Love E, Pimm D. ´This is so´: a text on texts. In: Bishop AJ, Clements K, Keitel C, et al. , editors.
International handbook of mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers;
1996. Vol. 1, p. 371–409.
[19] Zhu Y, Fan L. Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: a com-
parison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. Int J
Sci Math Educ. 2006;4(4):609–626.
[20] Li Y. A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and
Chinese mathematics textbooks. J Res Math Educ. 2000;31(2):234–241.
[21] Huntley MA, Terrel MS. One-step and multi-step linear equations: a content analysis of five
textbook series. ZDM Math Educ. 2014;46(5):751–766.
22 D. GLASNOVIC GRACIN

[22] Dole S, Shield MJ. The capacity of two Australian eighth-grade textbooks for promoting pro-
portional reasoning. Res Math Educ. 2008;10(1):19–35.
[23] Brändström A. Differentiated tasks in mathematics textbooks: an analysis of the levels of diffi-
culty [master’s thesis]. Luleå: Luleå University of Technology; 2005.
[24] O’Keeffe L, O’Donoghue J. The use of evidence based research on mathematics textbooks to
increase student conceptual understanding. Int J Cross-Discip Subj Educ. 2011;2(1):304–311.
[25] Niss M. Mathematical competencies and PISA. In: Stacey K, Turner R, editors. Assessing math-
ematical literacy: The PISA experience. New York (NY): Springer; 2015. p. 35–55.
[26] National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and standards for school mathemat-
ics. Reston (VA): The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; 2000.
[27] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The PISA 2003 assess-
ment framework – mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge
and skills [Internet]. Paris: OECD; 2003 [cited 2016 Sep 7]. 194 p. Available from:
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf
[28] Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesre-
publik Deutschland. Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz: Bildungsstandards im Fach
Mathematik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Conclusions of Standing Conference of the
Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs: educational standards for middle grade mathe-
matics]. München: Wolters Kluwer Deutschland; 2003. German.
[29] Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik. Standards für die mathematischen Fähigkeiten österre-
ichischer Schülerinnen und Schüler am Ende der 8. Schulstufe [Standards for the mathemat-
ical competencies of Austrian students at the end of the 8th grade]. Klagenfurt: Alpen-Adria-
Universität; 2007. German.
[30] Glasnovic Gracin D. Requirements in mathematics textbooks and PISA assessment [disserta-
tion]. Klagenfurt: Alpen-Adria University of Klagenfurt; 2011.
[31] Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis. Forum QualSoc Res [Internet]. 2000 June
[cited 2016 Sep 7];1(2):[28 paragraphs]. Available from: http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385
[32] Ministry of Science, Education and Sports. Nastavni plan i program za osnovnu školu [Edu-
cational plan and programme for elementary school]. Zagreb: Ministry of Science, Education
and Sports; 2006. Croatian.
[33] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. PISA 2012 results in focus: What
15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know [Internet]. Paris: OECD; 2014
[cited 2016 Sep 7]. 44. p. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-
results-overview.pdf
[34] Remillard JT, Harris B, Agodini R. The influence of curriculum material design on opportu-
nities for student learning. ZDM Math Educ. 2014;46(5):735–749.
[35] Thompson DR, Senk SL. The same geometry textbook does not mean the same classroom
enactment. ZDM Math Educ. 2014;46(5):781–795.
[36] Weigand HG. Ziele des Geometrieunterrichts [Objectives of geometry education]. In: Weigand
HG, Filler A, Reinhard H, et al, editors. Didaktik der Geometrie für die Sekundarstufe I. Berlin-
Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 13–34.
[37] Sinclaire N, Bruce CD. New opportunities in geometry education at the primary school. ZDM
Math Educ. 2015;47:319–329.
[38] Baranović B, Štibrić M. Math teachers’ perceptions of mathematics education in elementary
and secondary schools in Croatia: Results of an empirical research [abstract]. In: Pavleković
M, editor. Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Colloquium ´Mathematics and
Children´ – How to Teach and Learn Mathematics; 2009 Apr 24; Osijek. Zagreb: Element; 2009.
p. 96.
[39] Heymann HW. Allgemeinbildung und Mathematik [General education and mathematics].
Weinheim: BeltzVerlag; 1996. German.