Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorElmas, Ridvan
dc.contributor.authorRusek, Martin
dc.contributor.authorLindell, Anssi
dc.contributor.authorNieminen, Pasi
dc.contributor.authorKasapoglu, Koray
dc.contributor.authorBílek, Martin
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-21T12:11:48Z
dc.date.available2020-04-21T12:11:48Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationElmas, R., Rusek, M., Lindell, A., Nieminen, P., Kasapoglu, K., & Bílek, M. (2020). The Intellectual Demands of the Intended Chemistry Curriculum in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey : A Comparative Analysis Based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. <i>Chemistry Education Research and Practice</i>, <i>21</i>(3), 839-851. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00058B" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00058B</a>
dc.identifier.otherCONVID_35247492
dc.identifier.urihttps://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/68634
dc.description.abstractUnderstanding the intellectual demands of an intended curriculum is crucial as it defines the frames for actual teaching and learning processes and practice during the lessons. In this study, upper-secondary school chemistry curricula contents in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey were analysed, and their objectives were compared using the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT). The intellectual demands were examined analysing the action verbs of the three curricula objectives based on their association with the intended cognitive process dimensions in the RBT. The Turkish upper-secondary chemistry curriculum was found to be more structured, detailed, and containing more objectives compared to the Czech and Finnish curricula. The domineering objectives in cognitive demands were Understand (77.2%) and Analyse and Apply (both 7.1%). Conceptual items dominated (59.8%) with Procedural items identified (29.1%). Also, there are five Metacognitive items (3.9%). Czech curriculum, compared to the Finnish and Turkish curricula, does not take modern trends in the field of chemistry into account. The cognitive demands in the Czech curriculum were skewed toward Apply (40%) with Understand and Evaluate accordingly represented by 20%. The Conceptual items dominate with 53.3% occurrence. In the Finnish curriculum, the cognitive demands were skewed toward Apply (47.1%) with Create (23.5%) and Understand (17.6%). Procedural (35.3%) domains predominating, although Metacognitive objectives represent a significant share (23.5%) too. These findings from the contents and intellectual demands of the curricula in each of the three countries have the potential to help teachers and other actors in education to design the interventions and assessments implemented in the classes. Comparing the distribution of the intellectual demands between the countries provides an international reference for educational reforms in hand in many countries.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherRoyal Society of Chemistry
dc.relation.ispartofseriesChemistry Education Research and Practice
dc.rightsIn Copyright
dc.titleThe Intellectual Demands of the Intended Chemistry Curriculum in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey : A Comparative Analysis Based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:jyu-202004212843
dc.contributor.laitosOpettajankoulutuslaitosfi
dc.contributor.laitosDepartment of Teacher Educationen
dc.contributor.oppiaineMatematiikka ja luonnontieteetfi
dc.contributor.oppiaineMatematiikka ja luonnontieteeten
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle
dc.description.reviewstatuspeerReviewed
dc.format.pagerange839-851
dc.relation.issn1756-1108
dc.relation.numberinseries3
dc.relation.volume21
dc.type.versionacceptedVersion
dc.rights.copyright© 2020 Royal Society of Chemistry
dc.rights.accesslevelopenAccessfi
dc.subject.ysoluonnontieteet
dc.subject.ysooppimistavoitteet
dc.subject.ysovaatimukset
dc.subject.ysokemia
dc.subject.ysovertaileva tutkimus
dc.subject.ysoopetussuunnitelmat
dc.subject.ysolukio
dc.format.contentfulltext
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p6227
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p11960
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p14536
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1801
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1772
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p5140
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7401
dc.rights.urlhttp://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en
dc.relation.doi10.1039/D0RP00058B
jyx.fundinginformationThis work has been supported by the Charles University Research Centre Program No. UNCE/HUM/024 and the Grant PROGRES Q17 Program, Part 5 “Teachers Education and Teacher’s Profession in Science and Research Context” at the Faculty of Education, Charles University.


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

In Copyright
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as In Copyright