Cultivating Evidence-Based Reasoning Through Textbook Design: A Comparative Analysis of Chinese and English Science Textbooks Based on the Toulmin’s Argument Pattern
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46690/era.2026.02.03Abstract
Evidence-based reasoning (EBR) is a core competency in science education, yet little is known about how textbooks—the primary instructional resource—operationalize this competency. This study develops a three-dimensional analytical framework based on the Toulmin's Argument Pattern to systematically compare the presentation of EBR in the topic "microscopic structure of matter" between the Zhejiang Education Edition (China) and Cambridge Lower Secondary Science (international) textbooks. Using descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests, Spearman correlation, and ordinal logistic regression, the findings reveal that the two textbooks exhibit high overall consistency in EBR design, with the Cambridge edition showing marginal advantages in diversity of reasoning types, explicitness of warrants, and design of reflection prompts. The three elements—evidence, reasoning, and claims—demonstrate strong coherence, with completeness of reasoning processes identified as the only significant predictor of claim precision. These findings offer empirical insights for competency-oriented textbook development.
Document Type: Original article
Cited as: Zhang, C., & Wang, C. (2026). Cultivating Evidence-Based Reasoning Through Textbook Design: A Comparative Analysis of Chinese and English Science Textbooks Based on the Toulmin's Argument Pattern. Educational Research Advances, 1(2), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.46690/era.2026.02.03
Downloads
Keywords:
Evidence-based Reasoning, Toulmin’s Argument Pattern, Science Textbooks, Comparative AnalysiReferences
Chen, Z. H., Song, X. H., & Yao, J. X. (2024). The thinking mechanism of analogical reasoning and its application in physics teaching. Physics Teacher, 45(5), 9-13. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-042X.2024.05.002
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4
Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A., & Barzilai, S. (2018). Grasp of evidence: Problematizing and expanding the next generation science standards' conceptualization of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 907-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21468
Fang, X., Liu, Z. W., Shang, Y. Y., Guan, T. T., Wang, N., Lin, Y. C., & Wang, J. Y. (2023). A comparative study of scientific argumentation elements in Chinese and American junior high school biology textbooks. World Education Information. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-3937.2023.10.04
Grotzer, T. A., Solis, S. L., Tutwiler, M. S., & Cuzzolino, M. P. (2017). A study of students' reasoning about probabilistic causality: Implications for understanding complex systems and for instructional design. Instructional Science, 45(1), 25-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9389-6
Harsch, R. M., & Kendeou, P. (2023). Learning from refutation texts about scientific topics with analogical and causal explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 73, 102172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102172
He, S. L. (2018). A three-dimensional analytical framework of the nature of science and its explicit curriculum design. Journal of Tianjin Normal University (Basic Education Edition), 19(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.16826/j.cnki.1009-7228.2018.02.001
Li, H., & Lu, S. (2024). The conceptual shift and compilation characteristics of Zhejiang Education Edition junior secondary science textbooks. Teacher Education Forum, 37(12), 16-18. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.20955995.2024.12.005
Lin, C. (Ed.). (1990). Chinese middle school teaching encyclopedia: Education volume. Shenyang Publishing House. http://interlib.library.hb.cn:8008/opac/book/4003258413
Liu, D. H. (2020). Toulmin's "warrant" and argumentative discourse in modern Chinese. Contemporary Rhetoric, (3), 86-95.
Li, Y. (2024). An analysis of primary school science teaching strategies based on thinking visualization. Primary School Teaching Research, (14), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-284X.2024.14.002
Lu, Z. (2011). A comparative study of the new and old editions of the People's Education Press chemistry textbooks for senior secondary school grade 1. Southwest University. https://doi.org/10.7666/d.y1881663
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2025). Science curriculum standards for compulsory education (2022 Edition, 2025 Revision). Beijing Normal University Press. https://hudong.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xxgk/xxgk/neirong/fenlei/kcjc/kcjc_js/jcjs_kcbz/
Mo, X. (2004). A study of Toulmin's argumentation model. South China Normal University.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2025 science framework. https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/can_eng/
Peng, Y., & Ma, Q. (Eds.). (2010). Dictionary of logic. Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House.
Upahi, J. E., Ramnarain, U., & Ajibola, D. S. (2022). Analysis of writing prompts in South African physical sciences textbooks for Grade 12 learners. School Science and Mathematics, 122(8), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12556
Vered, A. A., & Popa, N. L. (2023). Explicit relational reasoning skills: An index for fostering thinking in biology textbooks. Educatia 21, (24), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.24193/ed21.2023.24.01
Wang, M. (2019). New Chinese synonym dictionary. Shaanxi People's Publishing House.
Wang, S. J., & Wang, C. J. (2023). Analysis and reconstruction of the argumentation structure of "free fall motion" in five versions of textbooks. Middle School Physics, 41(19), 33-36. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-4134.2023.19.007
Wu, H. (2003). Toulmin's model of argument: A critical review of misinterpretations in Chinese literature. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), (5), 23-27. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-5455.2003.05.005
Xie, J., Xie, L. C., Deng, G. F., & Huang, S. Q. (2020). The role of the "Thinking and Discussion" section in the new textbook in cultivating students' scientific thinking. Biology Teaching, 45(5), 17-19. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-7549.2020.05.006
Xu, X., & Zhang, Z. (2023). A study of argumentation structures in physics textbooks based on the Toulmin model. Middle School Physics, 41(19), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-4134.2023.19.005
Yan, Z. (2019). Investigation on the current status of "evidence-based reasoning" competency in chemistry. Shanghai Normal University. http://dx.chinadoi.cn/10.7666/d.Y3543812
Yang, Y. Q., & Ni, J. (2019). Evidence reasoning and model cognition: Connotation analysis and practical strategies. Chemistry Education, 40(23), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.13884/j.1003-3807hxjy.2018080051
Zhang, S. Q. (2021). Decomposing curriculum standards from the perspective of core competencies: Value, elements, and strategies. Chemistry Teaching, (2), 7-10. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-6629.2021.02.002
Zhang, S. C. (2012). Cultivation of evidence awareness in inquiry teaching. Physics Bulletin, (4), 13-16. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0509-4038.2012.04.006
