The Anatomy of a University Physics Chapter: A TextualAnalysis of “Motion Along a Straight Line” and Its Implications for Science Reading

Authors

  • Soni Nurparijal Institut Pendidikan Indonesia Garut
  • Arip Nurahman Institut Pendidikan Indonesia Garut
  • Sufyan Aslam Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31980/j2c97z50

Keywords:

textbook analysis, text type, metalanguage, scientific reasoning, physics education, science reading

Abstract

University introductory physics textbooks shape the content, vocabulary, and reasoning patterns students encounter, yet most textual analyses of text type, truth status, metalanguage, and scientific reasoning have examined junior high science textbooks, most notably Penney, Norris, Phillips, and Clark’s (2003) study. No study has directly applied Penney et al.’s four-part coding scheme to a university physics chapter, leaving open how such texts compare with the junior-high pattern. This study applied the Penney et al. (2003) framework to Chapter 2, “Motion Along a Straight Line,” from Young and Freedman’s University Physics (13th ed.). The chapter was coded sentence by sentence for text type, truth status, metalanguage, and scientific status/role in reasoning, with a second independent coding pass to check reliability. The chapter was overwhelmingly expository (approximately 79% of coded lines), but also contained a narrative component embodied in worked examples (approximately 15%) and a distinctive argumentative component in “Caution” boxes that refute misconceptions (approximately 6%); nearly all statements were true or explicitly flagged approximations, metalanguage was dense and mathematically inflected, and statements of fact or conclusion dominated the reasoning category, alongside explanation and supporting reasons concentrated in the Caution boxes. Textbook design at the introductory university level partially compensates for the near-total absence of argumentation reported for junior high textbooks, carrying implications for how future editions might more explicitly model scientific reasoning for students moving from narrative-rich to exposition-dominated science text.

References

Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49. doi:10.1002/tea.20265

Chavkin, L. (1997). Readability and reading ease revisited: State-adopted science textbooks. The Clearing House, 70(3), 151-154.

Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 713-725.

Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020119. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119

Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. doi:10.1002/sce.20050

Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 74–103.

McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14–24.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947–967.

Penney, K., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Clark, G. (2003). The anatomy of junior high school science textbooks: An analysis of textual characteristics and a comparison to media reports of science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(4), 415–436. doi:10.1080/14926150309556580

Reif, F. (1995). Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal of Physics, 63(1), 17–32. doi:10.1119/1.17764

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

van Peer, W., & Chatman, S. (Eds.). (2001). New perspectives on narrative perspective. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2012). University physics with modern physics (13th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-11

How to Cite

The Anatomy of a University Physics Chapter: A TextualAnalysis of “Motion Along a Straight Line” and Its Implications for Science Reading. (2026). English Education and Applied Linguistics Journal (EEAL Journal), 9(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.31980/j2c97z50