ANALYSIS OF TASK COMPLEXITY LEVELS IN READING TASKS OF THE ENGLISH TEXTBOOK (WORK IN PROGRESS) BASED ON THE SOLO TAXONOMY

Abstract

English textbooks play a central role in shaping students’ cognitive development, particularly in reading activities that are expected to foster critical and meaningful learning in line with the Merdeka Curriculum. Although the textbook Work in Progress has been recognized as structurally well-designed and aligned with curriculum standards, limited studies have examined whether its reading tasks truly promote deep learning as conceptualized in the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy. Most previous analyses relied on Bloom’s or Barrett’s Taxonomy, which tend to classify questions into lower- and higher-order categories without considering the developmental progression of understanding. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the levels of task complexity in the reading activities of Work in Progress for Grade X using the SOLO Taxonomy framework. This research employed qualitative content analysis involving 72 reading tasks selected from six units of the textbook. Each task was coded and classified into five hierarchical SOLO levels: Prestructural, Unistructural, Multistructural, Relational, and Extended Abstract. The findings reveal that the majority of tasks are concentrated at the Unistructural (34.72%) and Multistructural (27.78%) levels, indicating a strong emphasis on information retrieval and identification of discrete ideas. Although Relational tasks (26.39%) are reasonably represented, tasks categorized as Extended Abstract (9.72%) remain limited. These results suggest that while the textbook supports structured comprehension and moderate integration of ideas, it does not consistently encourage abstract reasoning or evaluative thinking. In conclusion, the cognitive demands reflected in the reading tasks align partially with the deep learning orientation of the Merdeka Curriculum, yet a greater inclusion of higher-level tasks is needed to promote sustained critical engagement.