Search

Measures of association, which typically require pairwise data, are widespread in many aspects of educational research. However, due to the need to reduce their content to equal numbers of units of analysis, they are rarely found in the analysis of textbooks. In this paper, we present two methods for overcoming this limitation, one through the use of disjoint sections and the other through the use of overlapping moving averages. Both methods preserve the temporal structure of data and enable researchers to calculate a measure of association which, in this case, is the complementary Euclidean average distance, as an indicator of the books' similarity. We illustrate these approaches by means of a comparative analysis of three commonly-used English and Swedish mathematics textbooks. Analyses were focused on individual tasks, which had all been coded according to the presence or absence of particular characteristics. Both methods produce nearly identical results and are robust with respect to both densely and sparsely occurring characteristics. For both methods, widening the aggregation window results in a slightly increased level of quantified similarity, which is the result of the 'smoothing effect'. We discuss the relation between the window width and the choice of research question.

The analysis of the content of school textbooks, particularly in a time of cross-cultural borrowing, is a growing field restricted by the tools currently available. In this paper, drawing on the analyses of three English year-one mathematics textbooks, we show how two approaches to the analysis of sequential data not only supplement conventional frequency analyses but highlight trends in the content of such textbooks hidden from frequency analyses alone. The first, moving averages, is conventionally used in science to eliminate noise and demonstrate trends in data. The second, Lorenz curves, is typically found in the social sciences to compare different forms of social phenomena. Both, as we show, extend the range of questions that can be meaningfully asked of textbooks. Finally, we speculate as to how both approaches can be used with other forms of ordered classroom data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]