Previous Article in Journal
Health and Mental Well-Being of Academic Staff and Students in Thailand: Validation and Model Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/educsci15101312
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Didactic Analysis of Natural Science Textbooks in Ecuador: A Critical Review from a Constructivist Perspective

by
Frank Guerra-Reyes
1,*,
Eric Guerra-Dávila
2 and
Edison Díaz-Martínez
1
1
Science Research Group Network e-CIER, Universidad Técnica del Norte, Ibarra 100105, Ecuador
2
Research, Development, and Innovation Department, Instituto Superior Tecnológico ITCA, Ibarra 100104, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(10), 1312; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101312
Submission received: 25 May 2025 / Revised: 19 August 2025 / Accepted: 20 August 2025 / Published: 2 October 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

School textbooks are central to the teaching, studying, and learning processes because they mediate the interaction between the prescribed curriculum and the educational experience in the classroom. Evaluating their didactic structure critically allows us to determine the degree to which they align with current curriculum guidelines and promote meaningful learning. This study aimed to analyze the extent to which Ecuadorian natural science textbooks reflect constructivist learning principles and promote the development of key competencies established in the National Priority Curriculum. This curriculum guides the achievement of essential results and strengthens fundamental competencies for students’ comprehensive development. Content analysis was adopted as the methodological approach given its relevance in examining the didactic and curricular dimensions of educational materials. The analysis covered twelve eighth-grade General Basic Education textbooks and their supplementary materials. The analysis was based on two instruments: specialized summary analysis sheets (RAE) and a purpose-built checklist. The ATLAS.ti 25 and IRaMuTeQ programs supported the systematization and visualization of the data. The results showed limited integration of constructivist strategies, such as teaching for comprehension, inquiry-based learning, and problem solving, in most of the analyzed texts. These findings underscore the need to expand and strengthen the incorporation of contextualized, critical, and meaningful learning experiences to improve the didactic design of school textbooks. Such improvements would promote coherent articulation between objectives, content, methods, resources, and assessment in line with constructivist principles of the Ecuadorian curriculum. Furthermore, given these approaches’ affinity with curricular frameworks in other regional countries, the results could offer relevant guidance and starting points for reflection on developing and using textbooks in Latin American contexts with comparable educational characteristics.

1. Introduction

In Ecuador, as part of its educational policies, the government aims to optimize the understanding of scientific knowledge. To achieve this, school education would prioritize a constructivist teaching process, inquiry-based learning, the use of technology, and the development of socio-emotional and cognitive skills (Cabero-Fayos, 2024; Giordan, 2020; Ministerio de Educación, 2023a, 2023b; Pedraza-Jiménez & Hernández-Barbosa, 2021). Despite this, limited educational improvement has been observed. In fact, the daily reality of teaching and learning natural sciences at the elementary, middle, and high school levels of basic education shows the persistent reproduction of traditional teaching practices based on the retention and repetition of scientific theory (Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa, 2018, 2024; Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura, 2016).
Since 2007, the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education has distributed free textbooks nationwide to reduce barriers to access and support the national curriculum. After nearly two decades of use, it is necessary to evaluate these materials to ensure their pedagogical relevance. While the General Regulations of the Organic Law on Intercultural Education do not explicitly require textbook evaluation, they emphasize the importance of continuous assessment. This includes reviewing the quality of educational resources and ensuring they align with 21st-century teaching goals.
The study of textbooks for learning natural sciences has been addressed by various researchers with multidisciplinary approaches related to: the nature of science, didactic assessments and impact on learning, and gender and intercultural perspectives.
This study’s conceptual and analytical foundation draws on four interconnected areas of knowledge. First, it examines international and regional research on the representation of the nature of science (NOS) in textbooks. Second, it incorporates studies that evaluate the didactic and curricular dimensions of natural science materials across educational systems. The review also integrates critical perspectives on diversity, such as gender and interculturality, in science education. Finally, the study is grounded in constructivist and critical pedagogical traditions, which provide an interpretive lens through which to analyze the textbooks.
In relation to the nature of science (NOS), it was found that several biology textbooks published in the United States highlight scientific literacy, encourage students to investigate, emphasize science as a way of thinking and how it is influenced by technology and society, and include references to the work of scientists (Chiappetta & Fillman, 2007). However, other authors found poor results in the representations of NOS in chemistry teaching. They conclude that students retain naive views and that teachers do not address the notion of natural sciences in a comprehensive manner. Other authors found poor results in the representation of NOS in chemistry teaching. They conclude that students retain naive views and that teachers do not address the notion of natural sciences in an accurate, coherent, and effective manner (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2008). In the context of physics, an analysis carried out in China found that the representation of NOS is not explicitly stated; although content related to observation and inference, as well as scientific knowledge and culture, is present, there is little content on scientific ethics and few strategies for developing thinking skills and applying scientific methods (Wei et al., 2024). In Norway, the results show that NOS was almost absent in all textbooks (Korsager et al., 2022). In the Latin American context, textbooks show deficiencies in this regard (Amador-Rodríguez et al., 2018; Solaz-Portolés, 2010). Finally, the findings of a systematic review show that NOS was poorly represented in textbooks regardless of country, discipline, and educational level (Su et al., 2023).
The didactic and curricular evaluation of natural science textbooks has been the subject of few publications. Among other findings, in the Asian context, some authors report that the focus is on the expository explanation of the suggested scientific content, with limited strategies for reasoning and inquiry (Molavi Ghalani et al., 2021; Parthasarathy, 2023). A study conducted in Portugal highlights that although the documents suggest addressing everyday issues and problems to teach scientific content, they do not provide concrete examples that teachers and students can implement (Morgado et al., 2022), nor do they indicate a high diversity of practical activities; therefore, they suggest diversifying them to balance teaching objectives and procedures (Faustino et al., 2014). In Latin America, several studies address the assessment of teaching components: the objectives are to acquire scientific knowledge and theory; although procedural content aimed at promoting observation, experimentation, and inquiry has been incorporated, its application is prescriptive and mechanized; in terms of assessment, despite the incorporation of various assessment perspectives, a traditional approach that promotes memorization and repetition of scientific content still predominates. Ultimately, they suggest reviewing educational policies and text selection criteria (Kong & Hidalgo Caprile, 2024; López-Valentín & Guerra-Ramos, 2013).
In the European context, a recent analysis of textbooks revealed significant gaps in the treatment of the nature of science (NOS). NOS encompasses the epistemological foundations of science, including production, justification, and contextualization of scientific knowledge within social and cultural settings. Although NOS is relevant to developing scientific literacy, several science textbooks perpetuate a positivist and static view of science. For example, Kapsala et al. (2022) found that NOS is mentioned implicitly in Greek secondary school biology textbooks and is not deliberately integrated into the curriculum. This contributes to an implicit curriculum that perpetuates a narrow view of scientific research. Similarly, Korsager et al. (2022) found that Norwegian vocational science textbooks omit NOS aspects in end-of-chapter tasks, limiting students’ understanding of the cognitive and epistemic dimensions of science. Additionally, science investigations are often presented in a dogmatic, confirmatory manner, which can lead to misunderstandings, such as the belief that all scientific studies must adhere to specific protocols or that the only objective is to prove a hypothesis (Kartal et al., 2024). These observations demonstrate that even well-developed educational systems have the potential to adequately portray science as a dynamic, inquiry-based, and socially situated process.
After a review of academic databases, a few scientific articles were found that address how textbooks explore the intersection between science education, gender, and interculturality. Among other findings, gender disparities were identified, but strategies for equity in the classroom were also proposed, such as the integration of content and images adapted to new sociocultural realities (Encarnación et al., 2018; Kenway & Gough, 1998; Molina Andrade et al., 2009).
In this context, the research proposes an analysis of the content, structure, and didactic approach of natural science textbooks in relation to current educational policies in Ecuador. Consequently, the research question was presented: to what extent do natural science textbooks utilized in Ecuador contribute to the implementation of constructivist learning and the development of key competencies as defined in the Prioritized Curriculum?
  • Epistemological framework of the term critical
From the perspective adopted in this study, the term “critical” is rooted in the tradition of critical pedagogy and didactics. This tradition is exemplified by the work of authors such as Apple (2012), Carr (2002), Freire (2013), Giroux (1990) and Kemmis et al. (2007). These authors view education as a dialogue-based process of advocacy for a science dedicated to promoting educational values and ideals. In this vein, being critical implies:
  • Question discourses and teaching strategies that perpetuate transmissive or memoristic approaches.
  • Analyze content and teaching strategies based on their capacity to encourage reflective thinking, social awareness, and student autonomy.
  • Consider school textbooks as cultural and ideological artifacts that can strengthen or weaken the cognitive emancipation processes of learners.
Therefore, the critical review is not limited to making normative judgments. Rather, it seeks to provide evidence that supports educational transformation based on criteria such as curricular adaptation, cultural relevance, and didactic coherence.
From a methodological point of view, a critical perspective is adopted when considering:
  • Consistency between the didactic design of the texts (objectives, content, activities, and assessment) and constructivist principles in the Ecuadorian curriculum.
  • The ability of the teaching materials to encourage complex thinking, inquiry, situated problem-solving, and autonomous learning.
  • The presence or absence of contexts relevant to students that foster learning from their sociocultural reality.
  • Pedagogical basis of the critical stance
From an educational perspective, critical thinking is considered a fundamental skill for the 21st century and an essential part of a student’s comprehensive education. Therefore, critically reviewing school textbooks involves asking oneself:
  • Do these teaching methods encourage reflective judgment, ethical decision-making, and student participation in the constructing of knowledge?
  • Do they contribute to educational equity, the development of scientific competencies, and the contextualization of knowledge?
In summary, the critical aspect of the study is the ability to identify training gaps and areas for improvement from a perspective committed to the right to quality education.
  • Definition and approach of constructivism
This study is based on a constructivist approach, which is understood as an epistemological and pedagogical current that views knowledge as actively constructed by the individual and influenced by their experiences, culture, and social context. Drawing on Piagetian, sociocultural, and radical theoretical traditions, this perspective has proven particularly fruitful in teaching natural sciences due to its emphasis on meaningful learning, inquiry, authentic problem solving, and conceptual change.
As Carretero (2011), Fourez (2008) and Porlán (2004) point out, constructivism involves recognizing students as protagonists of their own learning, teachers as mediators of learning processes, and knowledge as a dynamic, situated construction. In the field of science specifically, Giordan and de Vecchi (2006), Marín (2014) and Newman et al. (1998), as well as Serrano González-Tejero and Pons Parra (2011), have emphasized the importance of moving beyond transmissive models and fostering learning experiences in which students formulate hypotheses, evaluate evidence, and revise their preconceived notions.
Furthermore, the aforementioned ideas are in line with the constructivist pedagogical approach established in the following official documents:
  • National Educational Model (Ministerio de Educación, 2023b), which views students as active, reflective, and jointly responsible for their learning.
  • Competency-based Learning Curriculum Framework (Ministerio de Educación, 2023a), which focuses on education based on the acquisition of competencies, meaningful learning, critical thinking, and contextualized problem solving.
  • Academic-scientific approach (Ausubel et al., 2016; Giordan, 2020), which states that the content of texts should favor active processes of knowledge construction, promote inquiry, conceptual deconstruction, collaborative work, and metacognition, and be designed with didactic coherence between objectives, content, methods, resources, and evaluation, as required by the current paradigm in the country.
  • Constructivism and natural science teaching
Teaching natural sciences in basic education cannot be reduced to transmitting isolated content. Rather, it requires a deep understanding of knowledge as an active construction that is culturally situated and linked to contexts of power. Within this framework, social constructivism emerges as a pivotal pedagogical approach, positing that learning occurs through the interaction of students, their environment, and their culture. However, although this approach is widely disseminated, it needs to be critically reviewed so as not to be limited to a technocratic or culturally neutral vision.
This theoretical foundation is structured around three interrelated axes. First, the contributions of Cakir (2008) are used to address social constructivism in science education. Cakir highlights the need to create learning environments that favor inquiry, modeling, and metacognitive reflection. This approach legitimizes the analysis of the role that school texts play in such processes. Second, science is examined as a sociocultural practice from Cobern and Aikenhead (1997) perspective. According to Cobern, science teaching must connect with students’ realities and cultures, avoiding the uncritical reproduction of decontextualized teaching practices.
Third, the text critiques constructivism devoid of social commitment, as noted by Khan and MacEachen (2021). They recognize the approach’s contributions but warn of its lack of focus on empowerment. This limitation is addressed through a sociocritical orientation that incorporates ethical, environmental, and civic responsibility.
From this integrative and critical perspective, the theoretical framework guiding the analysis of the implicit teaching model in natural science textbooks is established. The aim is to review its consistency with constructivist principles, national regulatory requirements, and its potential to contribute to relevant, situated science education.

2. Materials and Methods

The study corresponds to a qualitative design with a content analysis approach, which combines a specialized documentary review and an analysis of textbooks, triangulated with relevant scientific literature. Identify the implicit teaching model and the incorporation of key competencies in the prioritized curriculum. This is not a systematic or integrative review, but a content-focused qualitative study that examines curricular and pedagogical coherence through a structured examination of official documents and textbooks. Ministerio de Educación (2021) outlines four major competencies: communicational, logical-mathematical, digital, and socio-emotional. These competencies are considered indispensable for students’ comprehensive development and their ability to address 21st-century challenges.
In natural sciences, students are encouraged to formulate questions and hypotheses, observe natural phenomena, conduct basic experiments, and apply scientific reasoning to their daily lives. These competencies serve as the goals of educational instruction, as well as the criteria by which the educational consistency and usefulness of textbook materials concerning constructivist learning theories are analyzed. A thorough review of the documents was carried out, complemented by the use of checklists to systematically evaluate the implementation of teaching strategies aligned with the principles of constructivism.
The checklist is not used for regulatory purposes, but as a qualitative exploratory tool to identify the presence, partiality, or omission of constructivist teaching elements. This instrument was derived from constructivist pedagogical principles and served to ensure interpretive coherence with the theoretical framework, rather than functioning as an external standard of textbook quality. These strategies encompassed the diagnosis of alternative conceptions, inquiry-based learning, problem solving, and active knowledge construction. Additionally, the study examined the potential persistence of conventional instructional approaches that prioritize instruction and content memorization.
The research unit of analysis consisted of 12 eighth-grade natural science textbooks used in Ecuador within the official education system. An examination was conducted to analyze the approach, content, and teaching structure employed by the institution. Complementary materials, including teaching guides, workbooks, and auxiliary technological resources, in both physical and digital formats, were also incorporated. It is evident that the exclusion of books was predicated on the premise that said books were outdated, obsolete, or restricted in availability. Table 1 provides a comprehensive list and analysis of the textbooks examined.
A comprehensive review of the textual corpus associated with astronomy content was conducted, with a particular focus on a teaching unit that centered on the study of the universe, outer space, and the solar system. The selection of this unit was predicated on a multifaceted set of criteria, encompassing its scientific pertinence and its capacity to facilitate learning, contingent upon the pedagogical components and the epistemological congruence of the curriculum. The rationale underlying this decision is elucidated in the subsequent section.
  • Historically, the study of the universe has stimulated human curiosity since ancient civilizations such as Babylon, Egypt, and Greece. In fact, it is said to have been the first natural science to be studied (Illana Rubio, 2008; Russell, 2013).
  • Astronomy has a unique ability to spark students’ interest and curiosity, facilitating the understanding of scientific concepts and the development of critical thinking from an early age, aspects that are relevant to the implementation of meaningful learning (Castiblanco Abril & Vizcaíno Arévalo, 2022).
  • Within the framework of constructivism, various studies have shown that students often have alternative conceptions, which persist despite school teaching, about basic astronomical phenomena, such as the phases of the moon, the seasons of the year, and the movements of celestial bodies. Identifying and subsequently addressing these misconceptions in the classroom would promote conceptual change (Redondo Moralo & Cañada Cañada, 2016; Varela Losada et al., 2015).
  • Its study supports the integration of a model focused on the development of observation, analysis, and understanding skills of the natural environment. Similarly, it allows for experimentation, dissemination, and application of technology in the classroom due to the extensive development of this science in contemporary times (Garzón Haad, 2024; Kersting et al., 2023; Portilla et al., 2020).
  • Finally, it offers opportunities for interdisciplinary study, connecting subjects such as mathematics, technology, engineering, arts, and humanities. In short, it provides a holistic view of the teaching process that is relevant to the curriculum requirements expressed in regulatory documents (Arenas Hernández & Gómez Arbeláez, 2023; Ortiz-Carranza et al., 2024; Serón Torrecilla, 2019).
Methodological process structure:
The process was organized into four phases, each supported by specific research techniques and tools: (1) data collection; (2) information processing and analysis; (3) interpretation and discussion of results; and (4) communication and dissemination of findings.
These phases are represented schematically in Figure 1.
  • Phase 1. Data collection
This was carried out in four stages: operationalization of the object of analysis, development of the document search strategy, design of the research instruments, and training of the supporting researchers.
Stage 1. Operationalization. In line with the qualitative approach and with the aim of analyzing the teaching process implicit in textbooks, a general category and five analytical dimensions were proposed, which made it possible to break down and interpret their structural components. The operational definition of each element, as well as its respective theoretical basis, are systematized in Table 2.
Stage 2. Development of the document search strategy.
As part of the data collection process, a document search strategy was developed to identify and select academic documents that have studied the didactic use of textbooks. The rigor of this stage ensured that the material analyzed was consistent with the objectives of the study.
For the document review, scientific articles were searched for in high-impact academic databases. With these research inputs, a RAE file was created for each available academic document. A sample of 28 scientific articles published in journals indexed in WoS, Scopus, Redalyc, Scielo, and ERIC was obtained.
The search terms used were: (“textbooks” OR “teaching materials”) AND (“natural sciences”) AND (“constructivist learning” OR “constructivism”); (“textbooks” OR “teaching materials”) AND (“natural sciences”) AND (“constructivist learning” OR “constructivism”). The searches were limited to the period between 2005 and 2025.
Stage 3. Design of research instruments.
Within the framework of the analysis of natural science textbooks, two specific instruments were applied: specialized analytical summary sheets (RAE) and a checklist. These were used to systematize and evaluate the content.
Instrument 1. Specialized analytical summary sheets (RAE).
RAE sheets are systematization tools that allow information derived from printed and electronic documentary sources to be organized in a structured manner (Guerra Reyes & Naranjo Toro, 2020). For their development, a format was adopted that integrates relevant data on key concepts and categories, methodological contributions, empirical findings, and conclusions reached by researchers.
Tool 2. Checklist.
As part of the methodological design (Bölsterli, 2015), a checklist with 47 indicators was used to guide the qualitative analysis of the content of natural science textbooks. This tool made it possible to examine key aspects of the implicit teaching process, organized around the five dimensions described above. Each indicator was formulated to assess the presence, partiality, or omission of relevant teaching elements from a constructivist perspective. In addition, they were related to the thematic focus of the content under study.
Stage 4. Training of support researchers.
In order to ensure the correct application of the instruments and minimize bias, 12 evaluators were trained, divided into three groups of four members each. Each group evaluated all the books; although individually, each evaluator reviewed four specific books to ensure that each book was examined by a participant from each group.
  • Phase 2. Processing and analysis of information
Qualitative techniques were implemented in the analysis of the information, which allowed the data obtained to be organized, classified, and interpreted in a systematic and well-founded manner. This procedure was carried out in three stages.
Stage 1. Organization and preparation of the document corpus
There were three main sources within the corpus: (1) RAE files on scientific articles, (2) checklists applied by students and by GPT to twelve Natural Science textbooks, and (3) the textbooks themselves. These documents were organized according to their origin to facilitate comparative analysis. Atlas.ti 25 software was used for coding, document management, and data visualization. Subsequently, 13 main categories linked to the constructivist approach, teaching elements, and prioritized curricular competencies were defined.
Stage 2. Content analysis
Using Atlas.ti 25, the entire corpus was coded with the support of the software’s AI-driven intentional coding, identifying conceptual patterns and key teaching characteristics. To determine the frequency of occurrence of each category in the different sources, a code-document analysis was performed, visualized with a Sankey diagram. A code co-occurrence analysis was also carried out to reveal significant relationships between categories. This procedure explored the thematic intensity and connections between key didactic dimensions in books, lists, and articles.
Stage 3. Triangulation of information
To increase the validity of the findings, a methodological triangulation was applied that integrated three complementary sources of analysis: (1) the academic review of the RAE files, (2) the mixed assessment (student and automated) of the checklists, and (3) the structured coding of the content in the books. This procedure integrated quantitative data (frequency, co-occurrences) and qualitative data (interpretative memos) to identify convergences, contradictions, and gaps in the literature.
As complementary techniques for textual analysis, Descending Hierarchical Classification (DHC) and lexical similarity analysis were used, both executed using IRaMuTeQ software. These techniques, based on graph theory, allowed for the visual representation of the most frequent lexical co-occurrences, as well as highlighting the internal consistency and emerging relationships between the analytical categories identified.
The textual corpus processed in IRaMuTeQ was composed of the analytical memos generated in Atlas.ti 25. Thirteen memos were integrated per category, along with 13 additional comparative qualitative interpretations. The text was subjected to an automated cleaning and lemmatization process with IRaMuTeQ, configuring the analysis through segmentation by occurrences, active lemmatization, and construction of the maximum graph for mapping lexical relationships.
  • Phase 3. Interpretation and discussion of results
In order to give meaning and establish the relevance of the analyzed data, interpretation and discussion were carried out using qualitative techniques. This procedure was carried out in four stages: theoretical contrast, critical comparative analysis, argumentative synthesis, and methodological crystallization. To ensure the validity and depth of the interpretation and discussion of the results, four analysis matrices were structured (Hernández-Sampieri & Mendoza-Torres, 2018; Krippendorff, 2018; Ruíz-Olabuénaga, 2012).
Stage 1. Theoretical contrast
The results obtained were compared with established theoretical approaches and specialized scientific literature. As a result of the contrast, the level of correspondence or divergence between the findings and the theories that underpin the constructivist approach and the development of specific competencies identified as key in the framework of science education in the country was verified. Finally, the results were contextualized based on national and international research conducted on the subject of study. Table 3 presents the contrast matrix.
Stage 2. Critical-comparative analysis
As a complement, a theoretical-empirical comparison matrix was used to systematize the main findings in relation to the previously defined teaching dimensions: objectives, content, methods, resources, and assessment. Finally, it was possible to determine the convergence and dissonance between the results obtained and the requirements of the prioritized curriculum, as well as the recommendations of the scientific literature consulted. Table 4 shows the critical-comparative analysis matrix.
Stage 3. Argumentative synthesis
With the information provided in the preceding stages, an argumentative summary was prepared to support the discussion of the results, highlighting the contributions to knowledge, educational implications, and suggestions for possible improvements to natural science textbooks. Several critical reflections were made regarding the limitations of the study and the prospects for future research on the role of school textbooks in the scientific education of primary school students in Ecuador. Table 5 presents the argumentative summary matrix.
Stage 4. Methodological crystallization
In the final stage of interpreting and discussing the results, methodological crystallization was implemented. This methodological approach permitted a comprehensive, reflective, ethical, and contextual synthesis of the findings. To this end, an integration of multiple sources of evidence was undertaken, thereby enhancing the validity and contextual applicability of the findings. Table 6 presents the synthesis matrix of the methodological crystallization process.
  • Phase 4. Communication and dissemination of findings
The final step in the methodological process entailed the communication and dissemination of the results to facilitate the sharing of the findings. To this end, the results were systematized and interpreted using language in accordance with scientific communication conventions. This process entailed the academic composition of all pertinent sections for the composition of this scientific article.

3. Results

This section presents the findings in relation to constructivism, the competencies of the prioritized curriculum, and the key teaching elements. The frequency and conceptual interrelationship of the categories analyzed are displayed.
  • Code-Document Analysis
The analysis revealed that the category “content” is the most prevalent in textbooks, accounting for 74% of total citations. In contrast, the categories “impact of constructivism” and “reflective assessment” are more pertinent in the checklists, accounting for 55% and 47%, respectively. Conversely, the RAE files exhibit a minimal presence of all categories.
The analysis yielded a Sankey diagram. As illustrated in Figure 2, the flow of each category is delineated, along with the relationship between each category and the various sources from which it is derived. The thicker lines, which pertain to books, signify thematic concentration in the categories of “content” and “constructivist approach.” Conversely, a tendency towards the category “impact of Constructivism” signifies a heightened level of critical scrutiny concerning the assessment of individuals and automated processing.
  • Concurrences between categories
The analysis revealed significant semantic relationships between categories. Despite the strong concurrence that was found between “contents” and “Constructivist approach” (1125), there remains room to better align declared active approaches with their implementation in textbooks. This indicates opportunities to complement dense theoretical treatments with more applied, student-centered procedures. Furthermore, a substantial correlation was identified between “teaching methods” and “learning objectives” (678), suggesting a promising foundation on which to further strengthen the alignment between didactic intentions and objectives.
  • Comparative triangulation
A triangulation of data between books, checklists, and RAE files illuminated areas where educational practice, didactic assessment, and academic theory can be more coherently connected. The textbooks present “content” from a declarative, encyclopedic, and transmissive perspective, while the lists—particularly those produced using technological tools—demonstrate emerging critical awareness regarding the application of constructivism. Conversely, the RAE files exhibit a comparatively low level of thematic representation. Taken together, these patterns highlight opportunities to more closely align methods with the tenets of constructivist educational practice. While certain key categories are presented concurrently in the materials, their integration can be further strengthened. Accordingly, the findings point to clear avenues for enhancing didactic approaches, so they are more investigative, reflective, and oriented toward meaningful learning.
Figure 3 reveals five distinct semantic fields that facilitate a critical evaluation of the role played by natural science textbooks in Ecuador in relation to the constructivist approach and the development of key competencies.
This analysis provides additional nuance and corroboration to the findings from ATLAS.ti 25, indicating that the textbooks under analysis only partially embody constructivist approaches and can more effectively support the development of key competencies. The dendrogram classes point to the following:
  • The present study identifies opportunities to diversify and strengthen teaching methods.
  • The persistence of transmissive models signals an opportunity to broaden active, inquiry-oriented practices.
  • The study observes limited explicit connections to student experience, suggesting potential to more closely integrate learners’ contexts.
  • An evaluation of the way knowledge is represented.
The grouped keywords reflect the effects, gaps, and potential of the curriculum material, thereby reaffirming the notion that conceptual change, critical reflection, and meaningful practice are more statements than realities.
To sum it up, the graph shows a teaching approach that’s all about repeating stuff without getting into higher-level thinking or reflecting on what’s going on. Class 4 has a more descriptive approach, focusing on one-way transmission of information with a weak link to curriculum quality criteria. Class 2 reveals the cumulative impact of persistent conceptual errors, highlighting deficiencies in comprehension, feedback, and formative assessment processes. It also reveals discrepancies between textbooks and the official curriculum and teaching approaches. Class 1, on the other hand, takes a critical view of the texts. Students are encouraged to question the graphics, the superficiality of the activities, and the limitations in provoking deep thinking. However, Class 5 suggests an opportunity to promote constructivism by proposing tasks that align with meaningful learning and conceptual change.
  • Similarity analysis
Figure 4 confirms the conclusions reached in the CHD and Atlas.ti 25:
  • Discourse about the student is present, but teaching practice fails to create conditions for meaningful or transformative learning.
  • Assessment is weak, superficial, and results-oriented, with no feedback or mediation for reflection.
  • Resources are present, but they are not critical or inclusive: they follow printed models, decorative visuals, and reproductive activities.
  • The books declare a constructivist approach, but their structure and content contradict this, maintaining a traditional and encyclopedic format.
As illustrated in Figure 4, the lexical classes include student, limit, learning, textbook, conceptual, and lack. As the central node, “student” manifests as the core and is strongly linked to two lexical classes. The conceptual and methodological interplay between “limitation” and “learning” highlights opportunities to more intentionally bridge student-centered discourse with classroom pedagogy. Where the discourse emphasizes competency development and meaningful learning, practice can further incorporate effective mediations to realize these objectives. Moreover, the relatively distant connections with “textbook” and “structure” point to avenues for strengthening operational integration. Resources and activities could be leveraged beyond closed or low-importance exercises, and while comprehension is an explicit objective, its didactic development can be enriched through mediations that provoke deeper cognitive engagement.

4. Discussion

The discussion was conducted in accordance with the four proposed stages: theoretical contrast, critical comparative analysis, argumentative synthesis, and methodological crystallization.
  • Theoretical contrast
The comparative analysis between the documentary results, the National Prioritized Curriculum, and the National Education Model of Ecuador identifies areas where implementation can be more closely aligned with constructivist learning and the development of key competencies in the natural science textbooks used in Ecuador.
In terms of learning objectives, the texts still emphasize memorization, while the curriculum promotes critical understanding and active citizen participation (Ministerio de Educación, 2023a, 2023b). With regard to content, an encyclopedic approach remains prevalent, offering an opportunity to expand contextualized, meaningful knowledge construction. In contrast, curriculum policies propose interdisciplinary content adapted to the sociocultural context of students (Addido et al., 2022; Certada Villarroel, 2013; Molina Puche & Alfaro Romero, 2019; Nadelson et al., 2018; Paredes-Paredes et al., 2021). In terms of methodologies, traditional expository methods predominate, indicating scope to further incorporate active, collaborative, and research-based strategies (Chiappetta & Fillman, 2007; Kong & Hidalgo Caprile, 2024). Regarding resources, the results show limited diversification, focusing mainly on traditional texts and images, suggesting potential to leverage ICT to enrich teaching and learning processes (García-Martín et al., 2025; Lee et al., 2022; Núñez-Ríos et al., 2024; Ortiz-Carranza et al., 2024). Finally, in the area of assessment, a traditional approach based on rote memorization predominates, underscoring the value of deepening formative and authentic assessment practices that favor critical reflection and self-assessment (García-Martín et al., 2025; Lee et al., 2022; Núñez-Ríos et al., 2024; Ortiz-Carranza et al., 2024).
These results align with prior Latin American research that critiques the misalignment between curriculum discourse and actual pedagogical practices in textbooks (Córdova, 2012; Guerra Ramos & López Valentín, 2011). Nevertheless, analogous concerns have been raised in European contexts. For instance, Kapsala et al. (2022) and Korsager et al. (2022) found that Greek and Norwegian textbooks, respectively, fail to explicitly incorporate the nature of science (NOS), reinforcing positivist and static views of science that hinder students’ epistemological understanding. This convergence across regions suggests a systemic issue in the manner in which textbooks mediate scientific knowledge.
These results are partly consistent with those of past research but also demonstrate significant differences. For example, Kartal et al. (2024) found that the number of inquiry-based learning activities in Asian textbooks is increasing. However, Ecuadorian science books have yet to adopt coherent inquiry-based or conceptual change approaches. Similarly, while Kapsala et al. (2022) reported subtle yet deliberate attempts at NOS integration in Greek biology textbooks, our data indicate that NOS manifestations are either absent or fragmented.
Additionally, Morgado et al. (2022) noted contextualized tasks in Portuguese textbooks, though they are impractical. Ecuadorian materials, on the other hand, do not provide adequate contextual anchoring and can recreate situations that are general or highly abstract and divorced from the reality experienced by students.
These variations suggest that the challenges of relating constructivist principles to textbook design are not universal. They may reflect local curricular priorities, editorial constraints, or broader pedagogical cultures. However, the problem of replication in settings that struggle with a competency-based curriculum is also a concern (Guerra Ramos & López Valentín, 2011; Su et al., 2023).
  • Critical-comparative analysis
A critical comparative analysis of the theoretical references and empirical results of the natural science textbooks used in Ecuador reveals a significant gap between current educational approaches and the teaching practices reflected in school materials.
Although the curriculum framework emphasizes the development of critical thinking, problem solving, and citizen participation, textbooks prioritize objectives focused on memorizing conceptual content without linking it to real-life situations (Ausubel et al., 2016; Giordan & de Vecchi, 2006; Jannah et al., 2023; Vilarta Rodríguez et al., 2020). With regard to content, there are discrepancies between the theoretical orientation toward an interdisciplinary and contextualized approach and the evidence in natural science texts of an encyclopedic treatment that is disconnected from the sociocultural realities of the student body (Ministerio de Educación, 2023a, 2023b). In the field of teaching methods, scientific literature supports active, collaborative, and research-based strategies; however, the expository model, based on the repetition of information, predominates in the texts (Önder et al., 2018; Strat et al., 2023; Vygotsky, 2009). In terms of resources, there is a limited variety of teaching aids, as well as significant limitations in the use of technological tools. This aspect restricts situated and comprehensive teaching innovation (Lee et al., 2022). Finally, in the area of assessment, practice is far removed from the formative, reflective, and authentic processes that the prioritized curriculum seeks to promote (Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa, 2018; Kesidou & Roseman, 2002).
An unexpected finding was a rhetorical–structural tension between the declarative discourse of the textbooks, which often claim to adopt a constructivist approach, and the actual structure and content, which presently reflect more transmissive and decontextualized learning models. Framing this as a coherence challenge may help clarify for teachers and students the need to assess not only the content of textbooks but also their pedagogical structure, thereby supporting clearer alignment.
  • Argumentative synthesis
The integrated analysis of natural science textbooks highlights systemic patterns that can guide improvement. In summary, opportunities for enhancement were identified in objectives, content, methods, resources, and assessment, including reducing reliance on reproductive approaches, addressing conceptual fragmentation, and strengthening articulation with comprehensive-constructivist teaching, in line with the principles of the current curriculum (Córdova, 2012; Guerra Ramos & López Valentín, 2011).
These deficiencies have practical implications that reflect structural tensions between curriculum policy and instructional practice. When textbooks fail to embody constructivist principles, they limit the possibility of implementing inquiry-based or competency-oriented strategies in the classroom. As posited by Guerra Ramos and López Valentín (2011), challenge is of particular significance in systems wherein textbooks serve as the primary teaching instruments. This assertion is further accentuated by Córdova (2012), who contends that instructional resources that prioritize memorization serve to reinforce transmissive models and impede pedagogical innovation.
This misalignment underscores the importance of evaluating not only the presence of content, but also its didactic coherence with curricular principles. According to scholars such as Carbone (2003) and Huang et al. (2022), the selection and design of textbooks must be based on rigorous criteria. These criteria include the analysis of epistemological consistency, support for active methodologies, and contextual relevance. In the absence of such criteria, curriculum developers may find themselves perpetuating a discrepancy between the intended learning outcomes and the tools made available to teachers and students.
Furthermore, the hypothesis that the provision of complimentary textbooks guarantees equitable and superior learning outcomes has been contested by both Córdova (2012) and Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (2018). These authors emphasize that, while access is imperative, it is inadequate when educational materials lack pedagogical depth, opportunities for formative assessment, or alignment with significant learning objectives. In this sense, policies centered solely on material provision can obscure the deeper need for content quality and teacher support.
The methodological approach employed in this study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the evaluation of educational resources’ didactic potential. The integration of qualitative coding, triangulation, and corpus-based techniques reflects principles of methodological transparency and adaptability.
  • Methodological crystallization
Critical analysis exposed ethical tensions between the official discourse promoting competency-based education and publishing practices that continue to reproduce obsolete paradigms (Ellingson, 2009; Tracy, 2010). Likewise, investigative reflexivity questioned traditional frameworks of analysis and highlighted the need to rethink quality standards in educational materials. Among the most significant findings are the following:
  • Plural understanding: The analyses reveal the prevalence of the traditional didactic approach, with weak contextualization of content, poor application of methodologies based on Teaching for Understanding, and a lack of proposals adapted to the Ecuadorian educational reality.
  • Reflective deepening: Student perceptions complement the technical analysis, highlighting the limitation of inclusive resources and limited autonomy.
  • Research reflexivity: The crystallization allowed for the interpretation of tensions between discourse and teaching practice. The methodological procedure adopted strengthened the validity of the findings, based on the following conditions:
    • Multivocality: integration of data from various sources.
    • Analytical depth: evidence of the disconnect between objectives and the situational context of the students.
    • Interpretive rigor: validity supported by internal coherence and research ethics.
However, it is imperative to acknowledge an underlying assumption of this research: the analysis is based solely on textbook content, presuming that such materials significantly influence teaching practices. While this assumption is supported by various studies that recognize textbooks as central didactic agents—especially in secondary education, where they are widely used to structure teacher planning and guide student learning activities (Nowicka, 2024; Rosa & Artuso, 2019; Sikorova, 2011)—their influence is not uniform across contexts. In practice, teachers may adapt, ignore, or supplement these materials based on pedagogical beliefs, curriculum demands, or institutional constraints (Jiang & Li, 2023; Vojíř et al., 2021). Furthermore, despite the prevailing perception of textbooks as authoritative sources of disciplinary knowledge, their actual use may result in superficial learning when not critically mediated (Nowicka, 2024). Consequently, future research should investigate the implementation of these textbooks in actual classroom settings, the negotiation of their use by teachers, and the extent to which their didactic structure facilitates or constrains the application of constructivist principles.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that the natural science textbooks currently employed in Ecuador provide limited support for the implementation of constructivist learning and the development of key competencies outlined in the national curriculum. To move closer to the objective of facilitating meaningful, student-centered learning, the textbooks can evolve beyond traditional instructional models that emphasize factual transmission and rote memorization, expanding opportunities for inquiry and conceptual change.
This phenomenon underscores a broader pedagogical concern, namely the disconnection between the official curricular discourse and the didactic structure of materials provided to teachers and students. Addressing this gap necessitates not only technical corrections but also a comprehensive rethinking of textbook design to ensure internal coherence, epistemological integrity, and alignment with 21st-century educational goals.
In this sense, the study provides critical evidence that can inform institutional reviews of textbook quality, curricular coherence, and educational resource policy. This finding serves to reinforce the notion that textbooks are not neutral instruments; rather, they function as pedagogical agents whose structural and content elements actively shape the manner in which science is taught, learned, and understood within the classroom setting.
Additionally, the findings highlight the importance of critically mediating and adjusting the content of textbooks to the learning needs of practicing teachers when the material cannot be used for inquiry, reflection, or competence-based education. Teachers need to proactively supplement transmissive content with student-focused approaches and formative assessments. On the international stage, this study reaffirms global concerns about outdated textbook models, even in programs that formally promote constructivist curricula. These learning outcomes can inform comparative research, textbook design principles, and professional development programs operating outside the Ecuadorian context.

6. Limitations and Future Lines or Research

A notable limitation of this study lies in its exclusive focus on the internal content and structure of textbooks, without addressing how these materials are actually used in real classroom contexts. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted in terms of the pedagogical model implied by the textbooks, rather than as direct reflections of teaching practice.
Although extant research supports the notion that textbooks play a central role in shaping instruction—particularly in secondary education systems—this influence is not uniform. Teachers may adapt, modify, or disregard textbook content depending on institutional norms, pedagogical orientations, and classroom dynamics.
Furthermore, the study’s scope was confined to natural science textbooks at the fundamental education level, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings to other academic disciplines or educational stages. The subject-specific focus and qualitative methodology do not aim to produce statistically generalizable outcomes. Rather, they seek to offer in-depth insights into the alignment—or misalignment—between curriculum principles and textbook design.
Subsequent research endeavors should incorporate empirical classroom data, including observations of lessons, interviews with teachers, and student feedback, to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of how textbooks are utilized, negotiated, or transformed in the context of daily teaching and learning processes.
The implementation of comparative studies across various academic disciplines, including mathematics, language and literature, and social studies, could assist in determining whether the identified patterns are systemic or discipline-specific. Consequently, this research line may provide insights that can inform broader evaluations of curriculum reform processes, and the editorial standards applied to educational materials in Latin American contexts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.G.-R. and E.G.-D.; data curation, F.G.-R. and E.G.-D.; formal analysis, F.G.-R. and E.G.-D.; funding acquisition, E.D.-M.; investigation, F.G.-R. and E.G.-D.; methodology, F.G.-R. and E.G.-D.; project administration, F.G.-R.; resources, F.G.-R., E.G.-D. and E.D.-M.; software, E.G.-D.; supervision, F.G.-R. and E.D.-M.; validation, F.G.-R. and E.G.-D.; visualization, F.G.-R. and E.D.-M.; writing—original draft, F.G.-R. and E.G.-D.; writing—review & editing, F.G.-R. and E.G.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original data presented in the study are openly available in FigShare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29145857.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the valuable support provided by artificial intelligence tools during the development of this study. We acknowledge the use of ATLAS.ti 25, in particular its AI-assisted intentional coding functionality, which contributed significantly to the initial organization and categorization of qualitative data, facilitating the analytical process and supporting the identification of emerging patterns during data interpretation. ChatGPT was also employed for the purpose of text review. In this instance, a customized GPT model was developed that applied a checklist-based instrument to evaluate textbooks. This development resulted in enhanced clarity and consistency of the content in accordance with the criteria established in the study. In conclusion, we would like to express our profound gratitude to the Universidad Técnica del Norte for its invaluable institutional support during the research development period.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Addido, J., Burrows, A., & Slater, T. (2022). The effect of the conceptual change model on conceptual understanding of electrostatics. Education Sciences, 12, 696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Amador-Rodríguez, R. Y., Ospina-Quintero, N., & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2018). Representaciones de naturaleza de la ciencia en libros de texto de química: Indagando por los tópicos epistemológicos de Representación y Lenguajes. Entre Ciencia e Ingeniería, 12(24), 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Apple, M. (2012). Can education change society? Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  5. Arenas Hernández, G., & Gómez Arbeláez, D. M. (2023). La astronomía como estrategia interdisciplinaria para fortalecer la gestión académica en la Institución Educativa San Antonio de Prado. Revista Humanismo y Sociedad, 11(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (2016). Psicología educatuva. Un punto de vista cognoscitivo (2nd ed.). Trillas. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bölsterli, B. K. (2015). Checklist for competence-oriented textbooks in science. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(11), 1450–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cabero-Fayos, I. (2024). Perspectivas contemporáneas en educación: Innovación, investigación y transformación. Dykinson, S.L. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning in science and their implications for science pedagogy: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3(4), 193–206. [Google Scholar]
  10. Carbone, G. (2003). Libros escolares. Una introducción a su análisis y evaluación. Fondo de Cultura Económica. [Google Scholar]
  11. Carr, P. (2002). Una teoría para la educación. Hacia una investigación educativa crítica (3rd ed.). Morata. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carretero, M. (2011). Constructivismo y educación (1st ed.). Paidós. [Google Scholar]
  13. Castiblanco Abril, O. L., & Vizcaíno Arévalo, D. F. (2022). Propuesta de enseñanza de la didáctica de la astronomía a partir de una perspectiva dimensional, en torno a lo disciplinar, sociocultural e interaccional. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 18(2), 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Certada Villarroel, P. A. (2013). Análisis del texto escolar de ciencias naturales desde la transdisciplinariedad. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, 31, 52–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cobern, W., & Aikenhead, G. (1997). Cultural aspects of learning science. In Scientific literacy and cultural studies project. National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Available online: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/science_slcsp/13 (accessed on 18 July 2025).
  17. Córdova, D. (2012). El texto escolar desde una perspectiva didáctico/pedagógica, aproximación a un análisis. Investigación y Postgrado, 7(1), 195–222. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellingson, L. L. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Encarnación, P.-G., Moreno-Fernández, Ó., & Moreno-Crespo, P. (2018). Educación para la diversidad cultural y la interculturalidad en el contexto escolar español. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 23(2), 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Faustino, P. N., Abrantes, I., & Gomes, C. (2014). Atividades práticas sobre os fósseis e a sua importância na reconstituição da história da terra em manuais escolares de ciências naturais do 7o ano: Análise em função da tipologia e do nível cognitivo. Comunicações Geológicas, 101, 1261–1264. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fernández Palop, M. P., Caballero García, P. A., & Fernández Bravo, J. A. (2017). El libro de texto como objeto de estudio y recurso didáctico para el aprendizaje: Fortalezas y debilidades. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 20(1), 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fernández-Reiris, A. (2005). La importancia de ser llamado libro de texto: Hegemonía y control del curriculum en el aula. Miño y Dávila. Available online: https://elibro.net/es/ereader/utnorte/35065?page=1 (accessed on 25 March 2025).
  23. Fourez, G. (2008). Cómo se elabora el conocimiento. La epistemología desde un enfoque socioconstructivista. Narcea. [Google Scholar]
  24. Freire, P. (2013). Pedagogía del oprimido (3rd ed.). Siglo XXI Editores. [Google Scholar]
  25. García-Martín, J., García, J. R., & Cañedo, M. I. (2025). Análisis de recursos retóricos en textos de Ciencias de la Naturaleza en 2o y 3o de Educación Primaria. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 22(1), 1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Garzón Haad, M. (2024). ASTRO-TECH: La enseñanza de la astronomía desde el aprendizaje digital. Inclusión y Desarrollo, 11(3), 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Giordan, A. (2020). Aprender. Instituto Superior de Formación Docente. [Google Scholar]
  28. Giordan, A., & de Vecchi, G. (2006). Guía práctica para la enseñanza científica. Diada. [Google Scholar]
  29. Giroux, H. (1990). Los profesores como intelectuales. Hacia una pedagogía crítica del aprendizaje (3rd ed.). Paidós Ibérica. [Google Scholar]
  30. Guerra Ramos, M. T., & López Valentín, D. M. (2011). Las actividades incluidas en el libro de texto para la enseñanza de las ciencias naturales en sexto grado de primaria. Análisis de objetivos, procedimientos y potencial para promover el aprendizaje. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 16(49), 441–470. [Google Scholar]
  31. Guerra-Reyes, F., Basantes-Andrade, A., Naranjo-Toro, M., & Guerra-Dávila, E. (2022). Modelos didácticos en educación superior: Desde concepciones de los profesores a las ecologías didácticas. Formación Universitaria, 15(6), 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guerra Reyes, F. E., & Naranjo Toro, M. E. (2020). La formación investigativa en los estudiantes de licenciatura en Educación Básica. Caso Universidad Técnica del Norte, Ecuador. Delectus, 3(3), 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hernández-Sampieri, R., & Mendoza-Torres, C. H. (2018). Metodología de la investigación. Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  34. Huang, R., Tlili, A., Zhang, X., Sun, T., Wang, J., Sharma, R. C., Affouneh, S., Salha, S., Altinay, F., Altinay, Z., Olivier, J., Jemni, M., Wang, Y., Zhao, J., & Burgos, D. (2022). A comprehensive framework for comparing textbooks: Insights from literature and experts. Sustainability, 14, 6940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Illana Rubio, J. C. (2008). Matemática y astronomía en Mesopotamia. Sumat, 58, 49–61. [Google Scholar]
  36. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa. (2018). Educación en Ecuador. Resultados de PISA para el Desarrollo. Ineval. [Google Scholar]
  37. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa. (2024). Políticas transformadoras hacia el nuevo Ecuador, desde la evaluación educativa. Ineval. [Google Scholar]
  38. Jannah, D. R., Indana, S., & Rachmadiarti, F. (2023). Validity of inquiry-based textbooks on scientific literacy skills. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 4(4), 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jiang, T., & Li, S. (2023). Secondary school students’ use and perceptions of textbooks in mathematics learning: A large-scale investigation in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1132184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2012). Modelos de enseñanza. Gedisa. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kapsala, N., Galani, A., & Mavrikaki, E. (2022). Nature of science in greek secondary school biology textbooks. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 12(2), 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kartal, E. E., Karabaş, Y., Kaya, E. N., & Hartamacı, S. (2024). Analysing science textbooks in terms of inquiry levels of activities and the nature of scientific inquiry. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(2), 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kemmis, S., Cole, P., & Sugget, D. (2007). Hacia una escuela socialmente crítica. Orientaciones para el currículo y la transición. NAU Llibres. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kenway, J., & Gough, A. (1998). Gender and science education in schools: A review ‘with attitude’. Studies in Science Education, 31(1), 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kersting, M., Bondell, J., Steier, R., & Myers, M. (2023). Realidad virtual en la educación astronómica: Reflexiones sobre los principios de diseño a través del diálogo entre investigadores y profesionales. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 14(2), 157–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khan, T. H., & MacEachen, E. (2021). Foucauldian discourse analysis: Moving beyond a social constructionist analytic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 16094069211018009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kong, F., & Hidalgo Caprile, R. (2024). El concepto de evaluación en los textos escolares de ciencias naturales y su orientación hacia el aprendizaje. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 29(2), 644–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Korsager, M., Fiskum, K., Reitan, B., & Erduran, S. (2022). Nature of science in science textbooks for vocational training in Norway. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(3), 768–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2022). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. López-Valentín, D. M., & Guerra-Ramos, M. T. (2013). Análisis de las actividades de aprendizaje incluidas en libros de texto de ciencias naturales para educación primaria utilizados en México. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 31(2), 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Marín, N. (2014). Enseñanza de las ciencias desde el punto de vista del constructivismo orgánico. Enseñanza de las Ciencias. Revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, 32(2), 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ministerio de Educación. (2016). Currículo de los niveles de educación obligatoria. Mineduc.
  55. Ministerio de Educación. (2021). Currículo priorizado con énfasis en competencias comunicacionales, matemáticas, digitales y socioemocionales. Mineduc.
  56. Ministerio de Educación. (2023a). Marco curricular competencial de aprendizajes. Mineduc.
  57. Ministerio de Educación. (2023b). Modelo educativo nacional. Hacia la transformación educativa. Mineduc.
  58. Ministerio de Educación. (2024). Guía del docente (CCNN 8). Educación general básica. Subnivel superior. Mineduc.
  59. Molavi Ghalani, M., Yousefzadeh Choosari, M., & Seraji, F. (2021). Análisis de contenido de libros de texto de ciencias de cuarto, quinto y sexto grado de la escuela primaria en función del grado de énfasis en las dimensiones del currículo de salud. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, 12(Especial), 2025–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Molina Andrade, A., Martínez Rivera, C. A., Mosquera Suárez, C. J., & Mojica Ríos, L. (2009). Diversidad cultural e implicaciones en la enseñanza de las ciencias: Reflexiones y avances. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 56, 106–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Molina Puche, S., & Alfaro Romero, A. (2019). Ventajas e inconvenientes del uso del libro de texto en las aulas de Educación Primaria. Percepciones y experiencias de docentes de la Región de Murcia. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 22(2), 179–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Morgado, S., Leite, L., & Dourado, L. (2022). Enseñanza para el aprendizaje contextualizado de las ciencias: Un análisis del currículo de ciencias basado en listas de verificación. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(4), 1072–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nadelson, L. S., Heddy, B. C., Jones, S., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Johnson, M. (2018). Conceptual change in science teaching and learning: Introducing the dynamic model of conceptual change. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(2), 151–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1998). La zona de construcción del conocimiento (3rd ed.). Ediciones Morata. [Google Scholar]
  65. Nowicka, M. (2024). Effective use of textbooks by early education teachers. Lublin Pedagogical Journal, 42(4), 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Núñez-Ríos, G. P., Rosales-Peláez, L. E., & Olivera-Cárdenas, R. E. (2024). Revisión bibliográfica acerca del proceso de aprendizaje asociado a la comprensión de dimensiones espaciales-temporales de eventos, problemáticas y prácticas sociales desde una perspectiva interactiva. Revista UNIMAR, 42(2), 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. (2016). Informe de resultados TERCE. Logros de aprendizaje. OREALC/UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ortiz-Carranza, G. J., Ortiz-Barre, G., Trejo-Márquez, G., & Martínez-Satizabal, E. (2024). Metodología STEAM. Aplicaciones en la educación básica. 593 Digital Publisher CEIT, 9(3), 1154–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Önder, F., Şenyiğit, Ç., & Sılay, İ. (2018). Effect of an Inquiry-based learning method on students’ misconceptions about charging of conducting and insulating bodies. European Journal of Physics, 39, 055702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Paredes-Paredes, C. E., Campoverde-Agurto, M. P., & Játiva-Macas, D. F. (2021). Herramientas tecno-educativas del siglo XXI: Fortaleciendo competencias digitales docentes para la enseñanza y aprendizaje. Sociedad & Tecnología, 4(S2), 335–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Parthasarathy, J. (2023). Content analysis of biology textbooks across selected educational boards of Asia for misconceptions and elements of conceptual change towards learning ‘cell structure’. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2283640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pedraza-Jiménez, Y., & Hernández-Barbosa, R. (2021). Perspectivas contemporáneas de educación en ciencias naturales: Nuevas formas de pensar su enseñanza. Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia. [Google Scholar]
  73. Porlán, R. (2004). Constructivismo y educación (7th ed.). Díada Editora S.L. [Google Scholar]
  74. Portilla, S., Ramos, C. G., & Cordero, J. (2020). Realidad aumentada y simuladores: Astronomía para niños y niñas de cinco años. Alteridad Revista de Educación, 15(1), 25–35. [Google Scholar]
  75. Redondo Moralo, F., & Cañada Cañada, F. (2016). Concepciones alternativas de alumnos de segundo y tercer ciclo de primaria sobre el sistema Sol-Tierra-Luna. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 46(1), 147–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rosa, M. D., & Artuso, A. R. (2019). O uso do livro didático de ciências de 6° a 9° ano: Um estudo com professores brasileiros. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 19, 709–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ruíz-Olabuénaga, J. I. (2012). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. Deusto. [Google Scholar]
  78. Russell, B. (2013). Historia de la filosofía occidental. Editorial Paidós. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sáez-López, J. M. (2021). Didáctica general. Formación teórica y práctica para educadores. Editorial Universitas. [Google Scholar]
  80. Serón Torrecilla, F. J. (2019). Arte, ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Un enfoque para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de las ciencias en un contexto artístico. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad—CTS, 14(40), 197–224. [Google Scholar]
  81. Serrano González-Tejero, J. M., & Pons Parra, R. M. (2011). El constructivismo hoy: Enfoques constructivistas en educación. REDIE. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 13(1), 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  82. Sevillano-García, M. L. (2005). Didáctica en el siglo XXI. Ejes en el aprendizaje y enseñanza de calidad. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  83. Sikorova, Z. (2011). The role of textbooks in lower secondary schools in the Czech Republic. IARTEM E-Journal, 4(2), 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Solaz-Portolés, J. J. (2010). La naturaleza de la ciencia y los libros de texto de ciencias, una revisión. Educación XXI, 13(1), 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Strat, T. T. S., Henriksen, E. K., & Jegstad, K. M. (2023). Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60, 191–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Su, R., Jiang, Z., & Wei, B. (2023). Representations of nature of science in science textbooks. Science & Education, 34, 585–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Varela Losada, M., Pérez Rodríguez, U., Álvarez Lires, M. M., & Arias Correa, A. (2015). Concepciones alternativas sobre Astronomía de profesorado español en formación. Ciencia & Educación, 21(4), 799–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vilarta Rodríguez, L., van der Veen, J. T., Anjewierden, A., van den Berg, E., & de Jong, T. (2020). Designing inquiry-based learning environments for quantum physics education in secondary schools. Physics Education, 55, 065026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Vojíř, K., Rusek, M., Rusek, M., & Rusek, M. (2021). Preferred chemistry curriculum perspective: Teachers’ perception of lower-secondary school textbooks. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(2), 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Vygotsky, L. S. (2009). El desarrollo de los procesos psicológicos superiores (3rd ed.). Crítica. [Google Scholar]
  92. Wei, L., Gao, B., Wang, J., Jiang, C., Zhang, X., & Ping, X. (2024). Research on the nature of science in China’s current high school physics textbooks. Science & Education, 33, 1467–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 01312 g001
Figure 1. Phases and stages of the research process.
Figure 1. Phases and stages of the research process.
Education 15 01312 g001
Education 15 01312 g002
Figure 2. Flow of each category and its relationship with the different sources.
Figure 2. Flow of each category and its relationship with the different sources.
Education 15 01312 g002
Education 15 01312 g003
Figure 3. Dendrogram. Note: The term “classe” appears exactly as generated by the IRaMuTeQ software, which is developed in French. In this context, “classe” is equivalent to “class” in English.
Figure 3. Dendrogram. Note: The term “classe” appears exactly as generated by the IRaMuTeQ software, which is developed in French. In this context, “classe” is equivalent to “class” in English.
Education 15 01312 g003
Education 15 01312 g004
Figure 4. Similarity analysis. Note: Colors indicate different lexical class groupings (without additional semantic meaning).
Figure 4. Similarity analysis. Note: Colors indicate different lexical class groupings (without additional semantic meaning).
Education 15 01312 g004
Table 1. Description of the natural science textbooks analyzed.
Table 1. Description of the natural science textbooks analyzed.
N°Name of TextbookAuthor(s)PublisherEdition
18 EGB. Ciencias de la Naturaleza. Aula Inteligente.Equipo pedagógico Academia EditoresAcademia editores2024
2Ciencias Naturales 8 EGB. Educación por competencias.Richard Lamiña SotalinEditorial Didáctica2024
3Ciencias Naturales en acción 8. Colección Ediprov.Liliana ChávezEDIPROV2023
4Ciencias naturales 8. Colección Innovaciones.Lizzet PérezEditorial Educatemas2018
5Ciencias Naturales. Octavo Grado de Educación General Básica.Monserrat NoboaProlipa2020
6Ciencias Naturales 8. Tendencias versión Plus EGB.Andrea Zárate Oviedo Maya Educación2023
7Ciencias Naturales 8. Siste+María Cecilia TeránSantillana S.A.2024
8Ciencias Naturales 8° EGB.Ligia Elena QuijiaMineduc-Editorial Don Bosco.2023
9Ciencias Naturales 8°María Aguinaga BuendíaMineduc-SM2016
10Competencia natural y científica para la vida 8.Equipo editorial EdinunEdinun2024
11Frontera. Ciencias Naturales 8 EGB.Karina Quishpe, Antonio Maldonado y Andrea ZárateEditorial Don Bosco2020
12Talento en ciencias 8.Agustín Álvarez A.Edinun 2024
Note: The symbol “°” denotes “grade” (e.g., 8° EGB = Eighth Grade of General Basic Education).
Table 2. Operationalization of the object of analysis.
Table 2. Operationalization of the object of analysis.
Level of AnalysisElementOperational Definition
General CategoryDidactic ProcessA coordinated set of didactic decisions and interactive actions aimed at structuring, systematizing, contextualizing, and guiding the teaching–study–learning process implemented by specific educational agents in situated contexts (Carbone, 2003; Fernández Palop et al., 2017; Fernández-Reiris, 2005; Huang et al., 2022).
DimensionsObjectivesEncompass goals, aims, and guidelines oriented toward achieving desired outcomes of the teaching–study–learning process. Within the framework of a competency-based prioritized curriculum, they aim to develop learners’ capacities and serve as the core around which all curricular elements are organized. They address the questions: Why teach? and What is its purpose? (Guerra-Reyes et al., 2022; Ministerio de Educación, 2021; Sáez-López, 2021; Sevillano-García, 2005).
ContentA set of knowledge selected for its formative, cultural, and disciplinary relevance. It may include facts, concepts, principles, skills, values, beliefs, and theories. Aligned with the official curriculum, content relates to ways of constructing scientific knowledge, experimental work, scientific language, and scientific attitudes. It addresses the fundamental questions: What to teach? and How to present information and knowledge? (Guerra-Reyes et al., 2022; Ministerio de Educación, 2021, 2024; Sáez-López, 2021; Sevillano-García, 2005).
MethodsStrategies and procedures that facilitate a meaningful didactic process. They include actions that promote dialogue among different forms of knowledge, respect for free expression, articulation of interdisciplinary processes, identification of alternative conceptions, collaborative work, encouragement of reading and writing, use of technologies, and implementation of guided research. This element responds to the question: How to teach? (Joyce et al., 2012; Ministerio de Educación, 2023a).
ResourcesMaterial, symbolic, and technological means used to construct knowledge, mediate learning experiences, provoke situations, develop skills, support the application of methods, and enrich assessment. From a didactic perspective, they address the question: With what to teach? (Guerra-Reyes et al., 2022; Joyce et al., 2012; Ministerio de Educación, 2016, 2021, 2024; Sáez-López, 2021; Sevillano-García, 2005).
AssessmentSystematic procedures aimed at the qualitative and quantitative improvement of the didactic process, based on shared, public, and continuous criteria and references. It includes the evaluation of student learning, study practices, and feedback on the teaching process. It addresses the questions: What was achieved, to what extent, and how? (Joyce et al., 2012; Ministerio de Educación, 2016, 2021, 2024; Sáez-López, 2021).
Table 3. Theoretical contrast matrix.
Table 3. Theoretical contrast matrix.
Analyzed DimensionTheoretical FoundationEmpirical FindingsCritical Comments
Objectives
Content
Methods
Resources
Assessment
Table 4. Critical-comparative analysis matrix.
Table 4. Critical-comparative analysis matrix.
Theoretical ReferenceVerified AspectRelationship with Results
Table 5. Argumentative synthesis matrix.
Table 5. Argumentative synthesis matrix.
Empirical FindingTheoretical SupportCritical InterpretationImplications for the Study
Table 6. Summary matrix of the methodological crystallization process.
Table 6. Summary matrix of the methodological crystallization process.
Crystallization ComponentSpecific DescriptionKey Data
Plural Understanding
Critical and Ethical Reflexive Deepening
Investigative Reflexivity
Creative Representation
Situated Findings
Complex Interpretation
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guerra-Reyes, F.; Guerra-Dávila, E.; Díaz-Martínez, E. Didactic Analysis of Natural Science Textbooks in Ecuador: A Critical Review from a Constructivist Perspective. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1312. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101312

AMA Style

Guerra-Reyes F, Guerra-Dávila E, Díaz-Martínez E. Didactic Analysis of Natural Science Textbooks in Ecuador: A Critical Review from a Constructivist Perspective. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(10):1312. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101312

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guerra-Reyes, Frank, Eric Guerra-Dávila, and Edison Díaz-Martínez. 2025. "Didactic Analysis of Natural Science Textbooks in Ecuador: A Critical Review from a Constructivist Perspective" Education Sciences 15, no. 10: 1312. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101312

APA Style

Guerra-Reyes, F., Guerra-Dávila, E., & Díaz-Martínez, E. (2025). Didactic Analysis of Natural Science Textbooks in Ecuador: A Critical Review from a Constructivist Perspective. Education Sciences, 15(10), 1312. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101312

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop