The particular dialect or language that a person chooses to use on any occasion is called a code 258 Copyright © 2024 The Author IDEAS is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 License Issued by English study program of IAIN Palopo IDEAS Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) Volume 12, Number 1, June 2024 pp. 258 - 277 An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR1, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani2, Putri Kamalia Hakim3 1910631060052@student.unsika.ac.id 1, akodir.albaekani@staff.unsika.ac.id 2, putrikamaliahakim@staff.unsika.ac.id 3 1Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Singaperbangsa Karawang 2Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Singaperbangsa Karawang 3Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Singaperbangsa Karawang Received: 2023-08-14 Accepted: 2024-02-25 DOI: 10.24256/ideas. v12i1.4123 Abstract Cognitive Domains are important in the instructions and questions for learning tasks in the textbook, especially for helping students improve their thinking skills. The aim of this study was to analyze the cognitive process and knowledge dimension of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy represented in the writing tasks provided in the “English for Nusantara” for seventh-grade students. This research was content analysis. This study used a checklist instrument. The research revealed that writing tasks in the textbook covered five of six categories of the cognitive process of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. The most used level of cognitive process was the remembering level. In terms of Knowledge Dimension, all Knowledge Dimensions existed in the writing tasks of the textbook. Writing tasks belong involving factual knowledge were most dominant. In other words, the writing task of the textbook put more emphasis on LOTS rather than HOTS and they were not evenly distributed in every chapter. This indicated that the writing task in the textbook is not appropriate with achievements of junior high school English learning in the Merdeka curriculum. Therefore, the textbook needs to be evaluated to be consistent with the achievements of junior high school English learning in the Merdeka curriculum. Teachers can also modify learning or use other supporting textbooks which are consistent with the Merdeka curriculum. http://u.lipi.go.id/1457703302 mailto:1910631060052@student.unsika.ac.id mailto:akodir.albaekani@staff.unsika.ac.id mailto:putrikamaliahakim@staff.unsika.ac.id IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 259 Keywords: Cognitive Domain, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Textbook, Writing Task Introduction Compiling instructional resources is one of several responsibilities that teachers must fulfil to ensure the success of the teaching process. In the educational context of Indonesia, it is common practice to utilize textbooks as the primary instructional resource within the classroom setting (Suhartono & Kristina, 2018). The textbook is expected to serve as a helpful tool for English language learning, including many components such as learning materials, exercises, language topic resources, learning objectives, and self-directed learning resources for students (Cunningsworth, 1995). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an evaluation of the current resources in order to obtain accurate material that can be utilized for appraising the quality of an available textbook. The evaluation of course books is a crucial aspect in recognizing strengths as well as weaknesses of these instructional resources. Consequently, this information can be utilized to enhance the quality of the materials (Cunningsworth, 1995). Exercises or questions on learning material are considered to be essential in textbooks. Each question has its own purpose and category, with the goal of developing students' abilities and skills. As one of the four language skills that second language learners must master, writing tasks can introduce students to a literary text, motivate and assist them in understanding it, and articulate their interpretation (Hoel, 1990 as cited in Homstad & Thornson, 1994). Effective writing includes three essential elements, namely content, organization, and writing style (Oshima & Hogue, 1991). Nevertheless, it is a common challenge for students to have difficulties when it comes to completing writing tasks. According to the findings of Lestari and Afrinaldi (2020), eighth-grade students had difficulties across all score aspects, with student background identified as the leading factor, followed by teaching media and learning environment. One of the difficulties of answering questions is that each question has different levels. However, difficulties make pupils think critically and enhance their skills. Achmad and Utami (2023) found that elementary school students' critical thinking improves with higher-order questions. Dzakiah (2020) also discovered that higher-order thinking questions in reading comprehension enhance critical thinking in senior high school students. Riwayitiningsih (2019) found that exploring questions allows students' critical thinking for meaningful learning, especially in the connectivity and coherency of their writing product and sentence flow, and they become actively involved in meaningful communicative language while writing. Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, Putri Kamalia Hakim An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 260 The teaching-learning process should benefit students most by increasing their cognitive thinking skills and providing constructive knowledge. Knowing what will be learned makes teaching-learning relevant. Anderson et al. (2001, p. 27) classified cognitive level into remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating in the revised Bloom's Taxonomy Theory. On the other hand, Anderson et al. (2001, p. 27) classified knowledge dimensions into factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. The textbooks used in each curriculum will be different because the textbooks follow the curriculum concepts. Each subject has its own textbook, which is beneficial for better learning. Teachers use a textbook named "English for Nusantara" published by The Ministry of Education and Culture in teaching students in the Curriculum Merdeka, which is the most recent curriculum at this moment. The textbook should include all cognitive process categories and knowledge dimensions in order to achieve the outcomes of students' writing skills for Phase D (seventh, eighth, and ninth grade) in "SK Kepala BSKAP No. 8 Tahun 2022". There are several studies which analyzed textbook based on cognitive domain of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. One of them was conducted by Rustiyani et al (2021) which revealed that in twelfth grade textbook, remembering was dominant and it needs to be revised in order to improve students' HOTS skills. The other study, Arlansyah, et al. (2023) also analyzed "English for Nusantara" for seventh grade in terms of reading questions. The study showed that textbook reading questions covered only some categories of cognitive process dimensions. Saputra and Pujiati (2021) also conducted research which analyzed another English textbook for seventh grade. The study revealed that all levels in cognitive process are existed in instructions with the most used level was remembering level. However, there were only three of four knowledge dimensions existed in the instructions with the Factual Knowledge was the most dominantly distributed. Based on the explanation, in the Curriculum Merdeka, which is the latest curriculum at this time, teachers’ uses a textbook called "English for Nusantara" in teaching students. The textbook must be further analyzed and examined to determine the quality of the textbook. Also, knowing writing tasks are important for students writing skill development, the present research was interested to analyze focused on the writing tasks included in “English for Nusantara” textbook based on cognitive domain of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. This research sought to answer the following questions: 1) How do the writing tasks in the “English for Nusantara” textbook cover the cognitive level of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy?; 2) How do the writing tasks in the “English for Nusantara” textbook cover the knowledge dimension of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 261 Based on the formulated problems above the objectives of this final project are to find out whether the writing tasks in the “English for Nusantara” cover the cognitive level and knowledge dimension of revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Method The researcher used qualitative research to perform the study (Creswell, 2014). The research focused on writing tasks included in the “English for Nusantara” for seventh grade Junior High School. There were 90 writing tasks included in the textbook. The content analysis research design was applied in this research since the research was drawing reproducible and accurate conclusions from writing tasks included in the textbook (Krippendorff, 2004). Besides, it has been effectively used to examine the text and resolve questions of disputed authorship of academic papers (Birmingham & Wilkinson, 2003). The study used checklist adapted from Hedgcock and Ferris (2009) as an observation tool. The procedure of the research was adapted from Krippendorff’s content analysis stages (Table 1). The research used Miles and Huberman's (1984: 21-23) data reduction, display, and drawing a conclusion or verification technique to analyze the data. The steps are: (1) data reducing: the researcher analyzed “English for Nusantara” for seventh grade writing tasks based on cognitive level and knowledge dimension of revised Bloom's Taxonomy; (2) data display: the researcher displayed the data in checklist tables and charts that showed the percentages of each cognitive level and knowledge dimension. (3) drawing conclusion: writing tasks in the textbook were analyzed using cognitive processes and knowledge dimension of revised Bloom's Taxonomy and supporting theories, so this research's findings were not only based on the researcher's opinions and understanding. Table 1. Stages of Content Analysis (Adapted from Krippendorff, (2004)) Stages Activities Stage 1: Unitizing “English for Nusantara” textbook for seventh grade consisted of various tasks in every chapter and the researcher classified the tasks based on four language skills namely Listening, Reading, Speaking and Writing. Stage 2: Sampling The researcher only focused on writing tasks in every chapter of “English for Nusantara” for seventh grade to be analyzed. Stage 3: Recording or coding Since this research analyzed a textbook, which in this sense has been recorded, this was no longer necessary. Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, Putri Kamalia Hakim An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 262 Instead, coding was done to transform various writing tasks in the textbook into analyzable form. The research involved the classification of the writing tasks provided in the textbook based on cognitive process and knowledge dimension of revised Bloom's Taxonomy. The cognitive process has six categories, namely C1 (Remember), C2 (Understand), C3 (Apply), C4 (Analyze), C5 (Evaluate), and C6 (Create). On the other hand, the knowledge dimension is categorized into four types: A (Factual), B (Conceptual), C (Procedural), and D (Metacognitive). Stage 4: Reducing data The data were presented in a table adapted from Hedgcock and Ferris (2009). This was done to simplify the data that is easy to understand and conclude Stage 5: Inferring The researcher drew conclusions from textbook writing tasks analyzed using revised Bloom's Taxonomy's cognitive processes and knowledge dimension; Stage 6: Narrating The researcher narrated the data that had been studied based on the conclusions that had been drawn and supported by theories, so that the study findings were not only based on the researcher's opinions and understanding. Furthermore, the researcher explained the findings for practical significance and contributions to literature. Also, the researcher gave recommendations such as practical use of the findings of this research for further research. Results 1. Cognitive Level Distribution in Writing Task There were five cognitive process dimension categories of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy presented in the “English for Nusantara” textbook (Table 2). There are 90 writing tasks in the form of questions and instructions that were analyzed. The results revealed that the writing tasks within the textbook cover five cognitive levels: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, and creating. From all of those cognitive levels, it was found that the higher-order thinking level (C4, C5, C6) is less dominant than lower-order thinking level (C1, C2, C3). IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 263 Table 2. Cognitive Level Distribution in Writing Task No Cognitive Levels Chapter Total Percentages 1 2 3 4 5 1 Remembering 5 11 9 8 6 39 43.3% 2 Understanding 0 1 3 1 0 5 5.5% 3 Applying 9 2 6 5 2 24 26.6% 4 Analyzing 0 3 2 0 0 5 5.5% 5 Evaluating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 6 Creating 3 4 1 6 3 17 18.8% Total of Cognitive Levels 90 100% Based on the cognitive process of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, out of 90 writing tasks in the” English for Nusantara” textbook, instructions and questions belong to category C1) Remember, which has the highest frequency and percentage of 39 (43.3%). The second category is C3) Apply with 24 (26.6%) questions and instructions. The third category is C6) Create with 17 (18.8%) questions and instructions. On the other hand, in other categories, the number of frequencies and the percentages show a relatively small number, namely C2) Understand 5 (5.5%), C4) Analyze 5 (5.5%), and there are no C5) Evaluate writing task question or instruction found in the textbook. Based on the table revealed that the writing tasks in the textbook “English for Nusantara” do not cover all the categories of cognitive process based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Moreover, the total of writing task in C1, C2, and C3 is more than in C4 and C6. There are 68 of 90 questions and instructions in C1, C2, and C3 with a frequency of 76%, and 22 of 90 questions and instructions in C4 and C6 with a frequency of 24%. It means that the textbook's authors prioritize lower-order thinking skills for writing task questions and instructions, which leads the students to recall, understand, and practice their writing skills based on facts, experiences, and information or materials provided in the textbook. The writing task cognitive process distribution in chapter one to five are not evenly distributed (Table 2) because the most commonly occurring task is remembering level (C1) which is the lowest order of cognitive processes. The other cognitive processes were not covered writing task evenly in every chapter, moreover the textbook did not include the evaluating level (C5). The researcher discovered verbs in each writing task question and instruction that can indicate the level of the cognitive process. Using verbs in each question and instruction is varied and creative since the author considered using words or verbs that seventh-grade students can easily understand. Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, Putri Kamalia Hakim An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 264 a. Remember (C1) The remembering level (C1) has 39 questions and instructions for writing tasks. The researcher found the verbs "Write," "Label," "List," "Match," and "Underline" in several writing task questions and instructions in the textbook that could be recognized as "remembering level" questions and instructions. Most of the writing tasks in the textbook for the remembering cognitive level category are questions and instructions that ask students to remember or write down information, experiences, facts, and materials from the textbook. For example, "Write your introduction in Worksheet 1.4" (Figure 1) tells students to write their introduction, and "Label Worksheet 2.20 with the correct word" (Figure 2) asks them to write the name of the picture correctly. Remembering is retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67-68). Most of the time, the answers to these questions and instructions are written in the textbook or come from the students' own experiences and daily activities. Students only need to remember and write down some obvious information from their memories. b. Understand (C2) Figure 1. C1 Writing Task Question/Instruction 1 Figure 2. C1 Writing Task Question/Instruction 1 Figure 3. C2 Writing Task Question/Instruction 1 Figure 4. C2 Writing Task Question/Instruction 2 IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 265 Understanding involves making sense of oral, textual, and graphic instructions in long-term memory (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 pp. 67-68). The understanding cognitive level in writing task questions and instructions typically require students to write about and demonstrate ideas and facts based on their understanding of certain objects. It demands students to recognize and comprehend words, phrases, and sentences. The verbs “Describe” and “Identify” in the writing tasks of the textbook were categorized as cognitive level understanding. Students are asked to describe an object in the textbook's understanding cognitive level questions such as "Look at each picture. Describe each room” (Figure 3) and “Look at the pictures below and identify the words from the pictures” (Figure 4). c. Apply (C3) Applying level deals with using procedures in real situation either to perform exercise or to solve problems (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 pp. 67- 68). "Complete" and "Use" are verbs that can be found in some writing task questions and instructions in the textbook that could be considered "applying level" questions and instructions. For example, students have to fill in pronouns to complete sentences, which gives them a chance to use what they have learned before such as "Complete sentences with suitable pronouns" (Figure 5). Another example is that students have to write based on given words, which gives them a chance to use them in their writing “Now, use the words in Part a to write a description about Galang and his friends” (Figure 6). In the textbook, applying level writing tasks ask students to complete sentences and write words, phrases, and sentences which relate Figure 5. C3 Writing Task Question/Instruction 1 Figure 6. C3 Writing Task Question/Instruction 1 Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, Putri Kamalia Hakim An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 266 to what they have learned. d. Analyze (C4) "Circle/Point Out" is the sole phrase in the book that shows an analyzing level. Some questions which belong to the category of analyzing level require looking at and putting objects into groups. The instruction "Circle one object that does not belong to the group in each category” (Figure 7) requires students to be able to figure out what parts of a topic are important or useful and what parts are not. Some specific questions at this cognitive level often require deep analysis (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67–68). It means that the person needs to separate or break the information in their mind to connect that part of the information with other information or a specific reason. e. Evaluate (C5) In the textbook “English for Nusantara” there are no evaluating level writing tasks found. The questions for evaluating cognitive level can be in form asking about the opinion of the students about information since evaluating is intended to make judgments based on criteria and standards (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67-68). f. Create (C6) Figure 7. C4 Writing Task Question/Instruction Figure 8. C6 Writing Task Question/Instruction 1 Figure 9. C6 Writing Task Question/Instruction 2 IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 267 The verbs "Make," "Outline," and "Arrange" indicated that some questions and instructions for writing tasks belong to creating level, with examples such as requiring students to write a dialogue with a classmate "Make a dialogue based on the following class schedules" (Figure 8) and requiring them to plan or outline their writing "Outlining and drafting your procedural text” (Figure 9) Creating level is the process of combining elements into a coherent or functional whole. Therefore, the majority of the questions in the textbook which belong to creating level category require students to plan and create a text and rearrange sentences. In conclusion, the distribution of cognitive levels in “English for Nusantara” emphasizes lower-level thinking skills: Remembering, Understanding, and Applying. Most of the textbook's writing task questions and instructions emphasize that students recall, understand, and practice their writing skills based on facts, experiences, and information or materials provided in the textbook. Even though the textbook provides higher-level thinking skills in writing task questions and instructions, the book is lack of evaluating level and needs to provide a sufficient amount of higher-level of thinking skills. 2. Knowledge Dimension Distribution in Writing Task Table 3. Knowledge Dimension Distribution in Writing Task No Knowledge Dimension Chapter Total Percentages 1 2 3 4 5 1 Factual Knowledge 12 10 15 12 7 56 62.2% 2 Conceptual Knowledge 5 3 4 6 3 21 23.3% 3 Procedural Knowledge 0 6 2 0 0 8 8.8% 4 Metacognitive Knowledge 1 1 0 2 1 5 5.5% Total of Knowledge Dimension 90 100% Table 3 showed that writing tasks in the textbook addressed all knowledge dimensions. The “English for Nusantara” textbook has 90 writing tasks, 56 were factual knowledge (62.2%). Second, conceptual knowledge with 21 (23.3%) questions and directions. On the other hand, in other two knowledge dimensions, the number of writing tasks and the percentages show a relatively small number, procedural knowledge had 8 (8.8%) writing tasks and metacognitive knowledge had 5 (5.5%). Because factual and conceptual Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, Putri Kamalia Hakim An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 268 knowledge was the most common tasks in every chapter, it showed that knowledge dimensions were not equally distributed in the textbook. a. Factual Knowledge Questions and instructions for writing tasks that belong to factual knowledge appear in each textbook chapter. It means that the knowledge to be learned in this textbook has many questions that lead the students to recall and write facts and information or materials based on the textbook and their daily life. Besides, most of writing tasks questions and instructions refer to subtype specific details which refers events, locations, people, dates, or vocabulary in certain fields. For example, students must write their own favorite food and drinks (Figure 10). b. Conceptual Knowledge Figure 10. Factual Knowledge Question/Instruction Figure 11. Conceptual Knowledge Question/Instruction IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 269 Similarly, questions and instructions involving conceptual knowledge are also numerous. Although it does not possess the same quantity as factual knowledge, it settled in the second place after factual knowledge. The majority of the instruction provided guides students to establish connections between elements. Students must know, for instance, how to use pronouns in a sentence (Figure 11). This instruction belongs to the conceptual knowledge subtype of classification and categorization. c. Procedural Knowledge In procedural knowledge, it has the least total, with only 8 instructions out of 90. It appeared only in chapter 2 and 3. Most of the questions and instructions of procedural knowledge are categorized as subtype knowledge of criteria for determining which involves students knowing when to use certain procedures. In this subtype, students must also relate the current procedures with similar situations using the same procedures. For example, students have to write steps of making certain food or drinks (Figure 12) and write tips for recycling items (Figure 13). d. Metacognitive Knowledge Figure 12. Procedural Knowledge Question/Instruction 1 Figure 13. Procedural Knowledge Question/Instruction 2 Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, Putri Kamalia Hakim An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 270 On the other hand, metacognitive knowledge has gained five questions out of 90 questions which placed in the least position. Metacognitive questions and instructions mostly belong to the metacognitive knowledge subtype, strategic knowledge, which is knowledge cognition of general strategies for learning, thinking, and problem-solving, such as having students to make an outline of their writing (Figure 14). In terms of the distribution of knowledge dimension, most of the questions and instructions for writing tasks in this book refer to factual knowledge. The second is conceptual knowledge. It means that there are a lot of questions in this textbook that ask students to remember and write down information from the book and from their everyday lives, such as events, places, people, dates, or vocabulary in certain fields. Also, most questions and instructions for writing tasks lead students to learn and understand different kinds of text and parts of sentences. However, this book has very few writing tasks involving procedural and metacognitive knowledge. Discussion 1. Cognitive Level Distribution in Writing Task Based on the analysis results of writing tasks in “English for Nusantara” for seventh grade, the researcher found that the writing tasks within the textbook cover five cognitive levels: remember, understand, apply, analyze, and create. From all of those cognitive levels, it was found that the higher-order thinking level (C4, C6) is less dominant than the lower-order thinking level (C1, C2, C3). Therefore, it can be concluded that the writing tasks in the textbook "English for Nusantara" do not cover all cognitive process categories based on Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. Also, it showed that the writing task cognitive IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 271 process distribution in every chapter are unevenly distributed because the most commonly occurring exercise is LOTS activity which consists of cognitive domain remembering (C1), understanding (C2), and applying (C3). The results showed that in the textbook "English for Nusantara," the category "remembering level" (C1) is used most often in most of the writing tasks. It means that most of the questions in the textbook for the category "remembering cognitive level" ask students to remember or recall and write information, experiences, facts, and materials from the textbook. Students only need to remember and then write some obvious information from their memories. The next most common category of cognitive process is applying (C3). In the textbook, students have to find an answer by using the words, phrases, and sentences they have learned. The third most apparent cognitive process is creating level (C6). In the textbook, the "creating level" writing tasks are mostly questions that ask students to plan their writing, make a text and rearrange words. Only a few of writing tasks in the textbook are in the category of understanding and analyzing. It means that only a few questions and directions ask students to understand, discuss and explain their ideas in writing. Based on Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, the guide for Phase D (seventh, eighth, and ninth grade) of "SK Kepala BSKAP No. 8 Tahun 2022" should cover all the cognitive process categories. It will lead students to reach the goals for their writing skills. The C1 (Remembering), C2 (Understanding), and C3 (Applying) writing tasks allow students to be able to share their ideas and experiences in simple, well-organized paragraphs that show the use of specific words and simple sentence structures. Then, C4 (Analyzing), C5 (Evaluating), and C6 (Creating) writing tasks can assist students learn how to organize arguments, explain or defend a position through models and plans, and create and present useful, creative, and convincing texts in simple and compound sentences. However, the book does not include evaluation level (C5) for writing tasks. Therefore, it means that the writing tasks in the "English for Nusantara" textbook are not yet in line with the Merdeka Curriculum. Since the textbook is used in the Merdeka Curriculum, which focuses on students' creative and critical thinking skills, C4, C5, and C6 should be included and distributed in the textbook equally. The results of the current study are consistent with several previous studies. Rinjaya and Halimi (2022) used Revised Bloom's Taxonomy to assess a textbook for senior high school students. The result showed that lower-order thinking skills dominated textbook instructions and questions. However, the study also showed that it can become higher-order thinking skills. This study Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, Putri Kamalia Hakim An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 272 suggested revising most textbook instructions and questions to encourage higher-order thinking and skills-oriented teaching. These findings reminded textbook writers to include cognitive activities to assist students develop their higher-order thinking skills. The other study was conducted by Gustiwan et al. (2021). They found the textbook tasks covered just several cognitive process categories. The textbook had uneven spread of cognitive level activity with more LOTS exercise than HOTS. This finding showed the need to increase the variety of exercises for material development in each chapter to accommodate HOTS learning. This increase in variation of exercise falls into analyzing (C4), evaluating (C5), and creating (C6) exercises. Arlansyah et al. (2023) also analyzed seventh-grade "English for Nusantara". However, they analyzed the textbook regarding the reading questions. The textbook has reading questions that require remembering, understanding, and evaluating. It means that LOTS was more dominant than HOTS in "English for Nusantara." reading questions. This indicated that textbook reading questions covered just several cognitive processes. Therefore, the study revealed that "English for Nusantara" reading questions were not in line with the achievements of junior high school English learning in the Merdeka curriculum. Ekalia et al (2022) also. The result showed looked at the proportion of lower-order thinking (LOT) and higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) questions using Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive levels. This indicated that questions and instructions in textbooks at different levels also did not cover all cognitive process of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. 2. Knowledge Dimension Distribution in Writing Task In terms of knowledge dimension, most writing tasks require factual knowledge. The textbook offers various writing tasks that require students to remember and write facts and information from the textbook and their daily lives, such as events, locations, individuals, dates, or field vocabulary. Writing tasks that belong to conceptual knowledge are in the second place. Most writing tasks of conceptual information allow students to draw relationships between parts such as parts of sentence. Though it appears in each chapter of this book, its amount is not equal. These knowledge dimensions align with the Merdeka Curriculum outcomes in "SK Kepala BSKAP No. 8 Tahun 2022" for Phase D (seventh, eighth, ninth of Junior High School): 1) students should be able to communicate their ideas and experience through simple, organized paragraphs, using specific vocabulary and simple sentence structures; 2) students must include important information and detail and change sentence structure in their writing; 3) students should use time markers, frequency adverbs, and common conjunctions to express ideas in the present, future, and past tenses; 4) students spell new words using English letter-sound relationships and IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 273 consistent punctuation and capitalization. Other than the first two knowledge dimensions, the last two (procedural and metacognitive) have a lesser distribution in the textbook. In procedural knowledge, it has the least total, with only 8 instructions out of 90. Most of the questions and instructions of procedural knowledge are categorized as subtype knowledge of criteria for determining which involves students knowing when to use certain procedures such as writing a recipe to make certain food and drinks. On the other hand, metacognitive knowledge placed in the least position with only five questions out of 90 questions. The metacognitive questions and instructions of the textbook are making an outline or plan of their writing. Though procedural and metacognitive knowledge are less appearance in the textbook, Merdeka curriculum in "SK Kepala BSKAP No. 8 Tahun 2022" requires students to structure arguments and explain or justify a position using models, plans, and informative, imaginative, and persuasive texts in simple and compound sentences. These two knowledge dimensions encourages students’ creative and critical thinking in writing. The results of the current study are consistent with several previous studies. Putri et al. (2021) analyzed a textbook for 11th-grade students based revised Bloom's Taxonomy cognitive process and knowledge dimensions. The study found that factual and conceptual knowledge dominated textbook questions and instructions. Nurfalah (2021) used Revised Bloom's Taxonomy cognitive process and knowledge dimensions to analyze another 11th grade textbook. The study focused on reading questions in the textbook. The result showed that the majority of textbook reading questions require lower-level thinking skills in understanding level and factual knowledge. Hakim (2011) also examined revised Bloom's Taxonomy coverage in English Standar Kompetensi (SK), Kompetensi Dasar (KD), and Ujian Nasional SMA English test items. However, the research found that the textbook did not cover all cognitive process categories and knowledge dimensions of revised Bloom's Taxonomy. This indicated that questions and instructions in textbooks or tests at different levels did not cover all cognitive process categories and knowledge dimensions or revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. The majority of textbook writing tasks require lower-level thinking skills. On the other hand, the textbook should implement the Merdeka curriculum, which encourages creative and critical thinking, therefore higher-order thinking skills are still needed and should be included. Moreover, according to Jean Piaget, seventh-graders are at the formal operational stage and should be able to solve hypothetical problems with several outcomes. It means the Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, Putri Kamalia Hakim An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 274 textbook should help students develop students' thinking skills. Conclusion The writing tasks in the "English for Nusantara" textbook do not cover all categories of cognitive process of revised Bloom's Taxonomy, it was not equally distributed in every chapter. This textbook only has categories of remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, and creating. Writing tasks in "English for Nusantara" dominated lower-order thinking skills with C1 remembering was the most dominant. In terms of knowledge dimension, the writing tasks in this book covered all knowledge dimension. However, it was also not distributed equally. Factual knowledge dominated writing tasks of the textbook. Writing tasks in the textbook do not require students' critical and creative thinking skills because the textbook was dominant in lower-order thinking skills even though the aim of the current curriculum is to encourage a higher level of student thinking. The research can help textbook authors to improve the textbook to put more balanced distribution of cognitive domain and more accurate to the curriculum. Also, the present study can realize teachers that they must not rely on the given textbook in the learning process. Teachers can modify the materials or tasks according to the curriculum and can use other supporting textbooks that are suitable for students’ cognitive development. The limitation of the study lies in the fact that this study only focused on analyzing the writing tasks in the textbooks based on cognitive process and knowledge dimension of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Therefore, a follow-up study can analyze other or whole language skill tasks of this book. Also, it would be interesting to carry out field observations on the textbooks used in classes to reveal the implementation of both lower-thinking skills and higher-order thinking skills. Acknowledgement All praise be to Allah, who has blessed us with mercy and blessings and also provided the researcher with the health and strength to complete this article. The researcher's gratitude to the Lecturers Mr. Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, S.Pd., M.Pd. and Mrs. Putri Kamalia Hakim, S.Pd., M.Hum. who have guided me to complete this article. The researcher also would like to thank the family and all beloved friends who always provide support and motivation to complete this article. References Achmad, W., K., S., & Utami, U. (2023). High-Order Questions Improve Students' Critical Thinking Skills In Elementary Schools. International Journal of Elementary Education, 7(2). IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 275 Anderson, L., W., & Krathwohl, D., R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assesing; A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Education Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Lonman Inc. Arlansyah, A., Puspita, H., & Saputra., E. (2023). Reading Questions in" English for Nusantara" Textbook by Using Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 7(2), 361-375. Birmingham, P., & Wilkinson, D. (2003). Using Research Instruments: A Guide for Researchers (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203422991 Bloom, Benjamin S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: Longman. Chandran., S. (2003). “Where are the ELT Textbook?”, in Willy A. Renandya (Ed.), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching:Current Perception and Practices and their Implications. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Creswell, J., W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cunningsworth, A. (1998). Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Macmillan Publisher. Damayanti, I., L., Febrianti, Y., Nurlaelawati, I., Suharto, P., P., Fellani, A., J., Rahmadhani, R. (2022). English for Nusantara SMP/MTs Kelas VII (pp. 1- 264). Pusat Perbukuan Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan. Dzakiah, D. (2020). The Use of Higher Order Thinking Questions in Reading Comprehension to Improve the Students’ Critical Thinking. Qalam: Jurnal Ilmu Kependidikan, 9(1), 36-42. Ekalia, Y. J., Selamat, E. H., Jemadi, F., Jelimun, M. O., & Setiawan, A. A. (2022). Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised in Analyzing the Reading Comprehension Questions. English Education: Journal of English Teaching and Research, 7(1), 59-66. Gak, D., M. (2011). Textbook-An Important Element in the Teaching Process. Uzbekistan: Fakultas Teknik Nautika. Gustiwan, F., Rahmawanti, M., R., & Indah, Y., A. (2021, December). Content Analysis Of Mandatory English Textbook Based On Bloom’s Taxonomy Of Cognitive Domain And Its Implication For Material Development. In Bogor English Student and Teacher (BEST) Conference (Vol. 3, pp. 139-147). Hakim, P., K. (2011). English Standar Kompetensi, Kompetensi Dasar, and Ujian Nasional of SMA in Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Negeri Jakarta) Hedgcock, J., & Ferris, D. (2009). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, Adiyanto Edo Nugraha AJR, Abdul Kodir Al-Baekani, Putri Kamalia Hakim An Analysis of Writing Task in English Textbook for Seventh Grade of Junior High School Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 276 and contexts. New York: Routledge Homstad, T., & Thornson, H. (1994). Writing Theory and Practice in the Second Language Classroom: A Selected Annotated Bibliography. German: University of Minnesota. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview”. Theory into Practice. 41 (4), 212-219. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Lestari, R., & Afrinaldi. (2020). An analysis of student difficulties in writing descriptive at eight grade at SMP N 4 Muara Bango. Journal of Language Education Development. 2(2), 261-271. Miles, M., B., & Huberman, A., M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Masruddin, M., & Kurnia, K. (2018). Improving Students Writing Skill by Using Picture at The Twelfth Year Students of Sma Pesantren Modern Datok Sulaiman Putra Palopo. Ideas: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 3(2). Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.24256/Ideas.V3i2.152 Masruddin, M., & Nasriandi, N. (2022). Lexical and Syntactical Errors Performed by Junior High School Student in Writing Descriptive Text. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 1094-1100. doi:https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v10i1.3024 Nurfalah, S., M. (2021). Analyzing Higher Order Thinking Skills of Reading Questions in an English Textbook (Doctoral dissertation, State Islamic University). Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1991). Writing: Academic English (2nd ed). New York:Longman. Putri, C., M., Herawati., A., & Rahmah, M. (2021). Content Analysis of English Textbook for 11th Grade of Senior High School on HOTS Criteria. Pedagogia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 13(2), 90-93. Rinjaya, D., & Halimi, S., S. (2022). An Evaluation of Indonesian Textbooks using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. OKARA: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra. 16 (1), 1 -18 Riwayatiningsih, R. (2019). Improving Writing Skill with Questioning: A Path on Critical Thinking Skill. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 3(2), 203-213. Rustiyani, Sofyan., D., & Syafryadin. (2021). “Levels of Cognitive Domain of Tasks in English Textbooks for Senior High School: A Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Analyses”. English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris. 14 (2), 280-293. Saputra, H., T., & Pujiati, H. (2021). Cognitive Domain of revised Bloom Taxonomy in English Student Book. JELLT (Journal of English Language and Literature IDEAS, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2024 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 277 Teaching), 6(1), 164-168. Sari, E., & Agustina, M. (2022). Thematic Development in Students’ Argumentative Essay. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 166-174. doi:https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v10i1.2563 Suhartono, S., & Kristina, D. (2018, August). Gender bias in textbooks and test items of English language learning in the Indonesian context. In Fourth Prasasti International Seminar on Linguistics (Prasasti 2018) (pp. 425-428). Atlantis Press.