dc.contributor.author | Elmas, Ridvan | |
dc.contributor.author | Rusek, Martin | |
dc.contributor.author | Lindell, Anssi | |
dc.contributor.author | Nieminen, Pasi | |
dc.contributor.author | Kasapoglu, Koray | |
dc.contributor.author | Bílek, Martin | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-04-21T12:11:48Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-04-21T12:11:48Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Elmas, 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.other | CONVID_35247492 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/68634 | |
dc.description.abstract | Understanding 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.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | Royal Society of Chemistry | |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Chemistry Education Research and Practice | |
dc.rights | In Copyright | |
dc.title | The Intellectual Demands of the Intended Chemistry Curriculum in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey : A Comparative Analysis Based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy | |
dc.type | research article | |
dc.identifier.urn | URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202004212843 | |
dc.contributor.laitos | Opettajankoulutuslaitos | fi |
dc.contributor.laitos | Department of Teacher Education | en |
dc.contributor.oppiaine | Matematiikka ja luonnontieteet | fi |
dc.contributor.oppiaine | Matematiikka ja luonnontieteet | en |
dc.type.uri | http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle | |
dc.type.coar | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1 | |
dc.description.reviewstatus | peerReviewed | |
dc.format.pagerange | 839-851 | |
dc.relation.issn | 1756-1108 | |
dc.relation.numberinseries | 3 | |
dc.relation.volume | 21 | |
dc.type.version | acceptedVersion | |
dc.rights.copyright | © 2020 Royal Society of Chemistry | |
dc.rights.accesslevel | openAccess | fi |
dc.type.publication | article | |
dc.subject.yso | luonnontieteet | |
dc.subject.yso | oppimistavoitteet | |
dc.subject.yso | vaatimukset | |
dc.subject.yso | kemia | |
dc.subject.yso | vertaileva tutkimus | |
dc.subject.yso | opetussuunnitelmat | |
dc.subject.yso | lukio | |
dc.format.content | fulltext | |
jyx.subject.uri | http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p6227 | |
jyx.subject.uri | http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p11960 | |
jyx.subject.uri | http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p14536 | |
jyx.subject.uri | http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1801 | |
jyx.subject.uri | http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1772 | |
jyx.subject.uri | http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p5140 | |
jyx.subject.uri | http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7401 | |
dc.rights.url | http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en | |
dc.relation.doi | 10.1039/D0RP00058B | |
jyx.fundinginformation | This 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. | |
dc.type.okm | A1 | |