Socioconstructivistic understanding of learning and teaching processes have become a dominant paradigma in scientific and professional literature in recent decades. Creating of such an environment for learning, in which a student has a participative role and constructs his knowledges through his personal intellectual activities, is both an ideal, towards which we are aiming, and a criterion for the evaluation of the teaching process.

In contrast to a fruitfull and rich research area that has in its focus sociocontructivistic teaching/learning environment, learning processes, teaching/learning methods, as well as the role of the teacher and a student, socioconstructivistic design of textbooks is a novelty. On the other hand, the textbook is seen as one of the pillars for improving the quality of education. Good quality textbook can amortize the poor conditions of  schools (especially in less economically developed countries), insufficiently motivated or trained teachers, social and cultural differences among children.

In socioconstructivistic view, textbooks have a much more complex role than transmission of the content. Textbooks have developmental and formative role in students’ construction of knowledge and both cognitive and personal development (Ivić, Pešikan& Antić, 2013). This is possible because, in the construction of textbooks focus is shifted from the content to the process of studying and acquiring that content. On the other hand, process of acquiring knowledge is seen as active construction of reliable and useful knowledge through students’ own intellectual efforts and actions. Textbook’s role is to provide conditions for the student’s independent construction of knowledge. This view emphasizes didactic design of the textbook’s content. That means that knowledge and information on a particular subject matter is didactically designed for a specific educational level and students’ age group. To fulfill developmental and formative role, textbooks should consider all relevant characteristic of  student, his ages, cognitive level, vocabulary, prior knowledge, way of living etc. Main elements of didactic design are different structural components of textbook which can facilitate and improve student’s construction of knowledge. Structural components and their compositions can provide conditions for student’s learning.

Bransford, J.D., Donovan, S.(2005). Scientific Inquiry and How People Learn in S.Donovan, J.D. Branford (eds). How students learn: science in the classroom. Wahington, D.C: The National Academies Press, str. 397-420 Britton, B., Gulgoz, S. & Glynn, S. (1993). Impact of good and poor writing on learners: Research and theory in B. Britton, A. Woodward & Binkley (Eds). Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates pages 1-46 Callender, McDaniel (2007). The Benefits of Embedded Question Adjuncts for Low and High Structure Builders. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99, (2), 339–348 Danielson, K. (2010). Learning Chemistry: Text Use and Text Talk in a Finland - Swedish Chemistry Classroom. IARTEM e-Journal, Vol. 3 (2) 1 – 28 Ivić, I. (1996). A Draft of a Necessary Curriculum Theory in Zindović-Vukadinović, G., Krnjajić, S. (eds) Towards a Modern Learner-Centred Curriculum. Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja Ivić, I., Pešikan, A. & Antić, S.( 2013). Textbook quality: A Guide to textbook standards. Gottingen: V&R unipress Ivić, I., Pešikan, A.& Antić, S. (2002). Active Learning: Manual for implementation of active learning/teaching methods 2. Beograd: Institut za psihologiju & UNICEF Johnsen, E.B. (2001). Textbooks in the Kaleidoscope A Critical Survey of Literature and Research on Educational Texts. Tønsberg: Vestfold College, digital edition, retrieved from http://www-bib.hive.no/tekster/pedtekst/kaleidoscope/forside.html Magnusson, S.J., Palincsar, A.S. (2005). Teaching to Promote the Development of Scientific Knowledge and Reasoning About Light at the Elementary School Level in Donovan, S., Branford, J.D. How students learn: science in the classroom. Wahington, D.C: The National Academies Press, str. 420 – 511 Mayer, R.E. (2002). Using illustrations to promote constructivist learning from science text. in Otero, J., León, J. & Graesser, A. (eds). The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, str.333-357 McNamara, D. et all.(1996). Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text. Cognition And Instruction, 14(1) 1-43 McNammara, D. (ed) (2007). Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies. Mahwah, New Jersey : LEA Otero, J., León, J. & Graesser, A. (2002). Introduction to The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension, in Otero, J., León, J. & Graesser, A. (eds). The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1-19 Palincsar, A.S. & Magnusson, S.J, (2000). The Interplay of Firsthand and Text-Based Investigations in Science Education. Ann Arbor: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of Michigan