Rıdvan
Elmas
ab,
Martin
Rusek
*a,
Anssi
Lindell
c,
Pasi
Nieminen
c,
Koray
Kasapoğlu
b and
Martin
Bílek
a
aCharles University, Faculty of Education, Magdalény Rettigové 4, 116 39 Praha 1, Czech Republic. E-mail: martin.rusek@pedf.cuni.cz
bAfyon Kocatepe University, Faculty of Education, ANS Kampüsü, Gazlıgöl Yolu, 03200 AFYONKARAHİSAR, Turkey
cDepartment of Teacher Education, 40014 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
First published on 8th April 2020
Understanding the intellectual demands of an intended curriculum is crucial as it defines the frames for teaching and learning processes and practice during 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 in 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 than 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%). The 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%. Conceptual items dominate with a 53.3% of 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 predominate, 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 design the interventions and assessments implemented in the classes. Comparing the distribution of intellectual demands between the countries provides an international reference for educational reforms in hand in many countries.
There are few methodologically sound studies focusing on the intellectual demands of chemistry or science curricula (Lee et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2015; Wei and Ou, 2018; Zorluoglu et al., 2016). To consider intellectual demands, the researchers focused on the cognitive processes and knowledge demands. The fundamentals of determining the cognitive and knowledge demands lie in the curriculum objectives. The type of knowledge the objectives are comprised of, is referred to as the knowledge dimension. The level of cognitive process the objectives are in is referred to as the cognitive dimension.
In this study, the curricula of the three countries were analysed. They were selected based on different aspects, as identified by a study in which factors affecting the study of chemistry were analysed (Blonder and Mamlok-Naaman, 2019). According to the chemistry lessons (periods) per week at secondary school, Czechia and Serbia stand out as countries with the lowest number of lessons (p. 627). As far as integration of science and mathematical disciplines is concerned (p. 627), only in Portugal and Turkey are they reported as being taught in an integrating manner. In Finland and Turkey, only one year of chemistry is compulsory, whereas in Estonia, Czechia, Sweden, and Slovakia, it is three years. Another factor taken into account in the cited study was the chemistry teachers’ salary (p. 628). Whereas Czechia and Slovakia reported the lowest average salary, the Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden reported the highest teacher salaries for the compared countries. There are three countries which stand out in the observed categories: Czechia, Finland, and Turkey. Moreover, students from these countries perform differently in international exams such as PISA. Finland is ranked top in these exams in terms of scientific literacy, Czechia average, and Turkey below average depending on the exam years (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2019). The reasons that these trends affect 15-year-olds’ performance in the test might be the factors outside those mentioned above or these countries’ elementary science curricula (see Wei and Ou, 2018). Comparing the intellectual demands of these three curricula might provide us with interesting information about how they vary, how expectations from chemistry teachers differ, and if the variation correlates with the three countries’ PISA ranking. For example, the chemistry curriculum is supposed to be followed loyally in Turkey, and there is no flexibility on the subject matter because of the university entrance examination's coverage (Elmas et al., 2014). In Czechia, the upper-secondary chemistry curriculum at the national level represents a general framework presenting compulsory expected student learning outcomes as well as compulsory subject matter which needs to be included. This framework is then adopted by each school individually and stands as a model for a school curriculum document. It needs to respect the extent of the subject matter given by the national curriculum but can extend it in a flexible way. In Finland, similar to Czechia, there is a national core curriculum to strengthen educational equality in the country. The chemistry core curriculum defines the rationale, outcomes, content and principles of learning, and assessment. This core curriculum gives a framework to design more specific local school curricula and annual plans. These are to take into account local special features, such as timing, resources and traditions. Each student designs his or her personal study plan based on the local curriculum (Finnish National Agency of Education, 2016, p. 9). The Finnish National Agency of Education defines the local curricula as “living and flexible support for teaching and school activities.”
1. They display the panoramic view of the curriculum's intellectual capacity, which gives educators the advantage of making comparisons between different sets of standards/questions/activities/objectives.
2. They make the objectives more understandable for all stakeholders, providing them with a baseline to refer to educational problems with more precision.
3. Educators can have a chance to follow the curricular trends in one or more disciplines.
4. Taxonomies can help educators compare the alignment of standards/questions/activities/objectives with the mission and vision of the educational system.
Bloom's taxonomy and the revised Bloom's taxonomy (RBT) are the most well-known and cited (cf.Krathwohl, 2002; Näsström, 2009; Toledo and Dubas, 2015). This could be due to the pioneering role of B. S. Bloom in taxonomy development. Besides, the revised Bloom's taxonomy (RBT) has an extensive range of use in education and is generally understood. There are examples of research focusing on curriculum objectives (Wei and Ou, 2018; Zorluoglu et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2015; Näsström, 2009), higher-level questions with twice-exceptional children (Ritchotte and Zaghlawan, 2019), physics exam questions (Motlhabane, 2017) or alignment of standards and assessment (Näsström and Henriksson, 2008) with use of the RBT.
The RBT has several advantages over the original Bloom's taxonomy. These come from its two-dimensional structure. The RBT has two dimensions: knowledge and cognitive processes. The knowledge dimension is comprised of four major categories and 11 subcategories (Anderson et al., 2001). The primary knowledge dimension categories are factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. Factual knowledge is the essential element or piece of knowledge vocabulary in any discipline. Conceptual knowledge is about concepts and their larger relational web structure compared to others. Procedural knowledge stands for how to do something following a set of rules, and metacognitive knowledge is about self-realization and awareness of and reflection upon one's cognitive process. The cognitive process dimension has six primary categories and 19 subcategories (Anderson et al., 2001). The primary cognitive process dimension categories are remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate, and create. These major dimensional categories are directly related to their verb form meaning. For instance, the evaluate dimension is used to categorize the standards, questions, activities, or objectives based on their inclusion in any judgment based on a set of rules or criteria. The main structure of the cognitive process dimension is based on a hierarchical model (Bloom et al., 1956). For example, the understand category needs to be mastered as a prerequisite before one can apply.
The original purpose of Bloom's taxonomy was to classify test items for higher education (Bloom et al., 1956), however many educators, especially in lower grades, devalue basic skills based on the taxonomy (Booker, 2007). There is a risk that learning these reverts in the higher grades before the students can use them in a full capacity for higher-level categories. There are some critics of Bloom's taxonomy (e.g., Furst, 1981; Marzano and Kendall, 2006; Ormell, 1974) and the RBT (Booker, 2007; Marzano and Kendall, 2006) because of their similar structure. Some researchers developed new taxonomies encompassing the RBT (Marzano and Kendall, 2006). Despite the critics, some studies concluded that RBT is a beneficial tool to interpret standards, questions, activities, or objectives (Näsström, 2009). Amer (2006) reported the RBT's potential areas of use as analysing objectives, helping teachers gain more understanding between objectives and activities, supporting teachers to understand the importance of aligning the teaching/learning and assessment process, and examining curriculum alignment.
To analyse the intellectual demands of the chemistry curricula, the authors of this paper chose objectives as a unit of analysis because they are the most specific content parts valuable to all stakeholders (Amer, 2006; Porter, 2002). Also, any other part of the curriculum makes sense only when linked to the objectives. The RBT was chosen as a framework to categorize the objectives for several reasons (cf.Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom et al., 1956): first, there is a common understanding of the RBT and its categories (cognitive and knowledge dimensions); therefore, it is convenient to conduct a curriculum comparison study on its solid and established structure. Second, the RBT is generally used to categorize objectives, standards, questions, and such to align curriculum components. Third, the use of the RBT and action verbs allows researchers to interpret the intended objectives for teachers’ practice and students’ performance. Fourth, educational stakeholders can see the reciprocal perspectives between cognitive and knowledge dimensions embedded in objectives. Fifth, the RBT presents clear principles about the transitional nature of teaching from objectives to assessment. Finally, the RBT is helpful for all stakeholders to make better sense of many concepts and ideas in the curriculum and the learning process.
Čtrnáctová and Zajíček (2010) evaluated that the criteria for success in this system are based on only very variable recruitment procedures from universities. It means that teachers try to make students understand a large number of terms/facts mentioned in textbooks and which teachers consider a given standard, without giving enough time and space to learn the concepts, making connections between them and applying them. The concepts are mostly only theoretically introduced, and often their practical experimental verification is completely absent. It causes negative output in the form of low interest for further chemistry study. The Fundamentals of this state are, however, set by only minor changes in the national curricula since 1989 (Vojíř and Rusek, 2020).
Chemistry has been a distinct school subject in Finland since 1918, but it was only qualified in the upper-secondary school curriculum in 1941. This curriculum was valid for almost 30 years, and it was only officially reformed in 1970. The wide learning objective in 1941 was to “understand key theories and laws” (Vaskuri, 2017). In the curriculum for upper-secondary school 1970, the objectives for learning chemistry already included attitudes (interest in phenomena and laws in chemistry), skills (apply concepts and laws of chemistry in discrete cases) and knowledge (i.e., knowing elements and their most important compounds) (Vaskuri, 2017). The first national core curriculum for upper-secondary high schools in 1985 already included a cross-cutting objective to “realize general principles of science by special nature of chemistry” and chemistry in society: “give a versatile picture of achievements of chemistry in different areas of life” (Vaskuri, 2017). In the following national upper secondary core curriculum 1994, the objectives were expressed very generally, which caused big problems for teachers to implement, and thus, the national core curriculum in 2003 included a clear list of the separate courses’ key contents (Vaskuri, 2017). The present Finnish National Core Curriculum for General Upper Secondary Schools 2015 (grade 10–12, Finnish National Agency of Education, 2016) describes learning objectives for five chemistry courses. Chemistry all around is the only “must” course for every student with 3 cognitive domain objectives. The four optional courses are the chemistry of man and of the living environment (4 objectives), reactions and energy (3 objectives), materials and technology (4 objectives) and reactions and equilibrium (3 objectives).
The significance of this research comes from its multinational perspective and the use of a well-proven taxonomy – RBT – as a framework for chemistry curriculum objective analysis. There are two studies analysing different countries’ or regions’ science curricula. However, they focus on top-performing countries in multinational exams (Lee et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2015; Wei and Ou, 2018). The present study targets three countries from various score levels in these multinational exams. So far, a general comparison of Turkey and Finland has been made for their previous chemistry curricula (Er and Atici, 2016). Nevertheless, the present study aims to analyse the current curricula of three countries. Including the Czech context adds to the study's value for the reasons mentioned earlier. The intellectual demands documented in the intended curriculum define the teaching processes, and learning experiences perceived by learners. Actual, implemented, and attained curricula vary among schools, teachers, and individual learners. Comparing these needs would require a large pool of data from several different schools or alternatively comparing some more general national documents. This is beyond the scope of this study. In addition, this work cannot be done without prior knowledge of the intended curricular setting. The analyses of the intended curricula provide an overview of the similarities and differences in the visions and intentions of chemistry education in the three countries and, as such, inform us of the process of teaching chemistry. Therefore, the following research questions were formulated: (1) what are the general features of the analysed curricula in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey? (2) What are the intellectual demands of the intended secondary school chemistry curriculum in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey? (3) What are the differences in the intellectual demands of the intended secondary school chemistry curriculum in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey?
For example, in the objective “Student characterizes basic metabolic processes” (Czech curriculum), the verb characterizes suggests understanding. Characterization was then coded as a conceptual dimension. Some of the curriculum objectives contained two command verbs (e.g. “Student knows how to use and apply…” in the Finnish curriculum). In this case, this objective was coded with the higher-level verb, as advised by the revised Bloom's taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001). For examples, see Table 1.
Knowledge dimension | Cognitive dimension | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Remember | Understand | Apply | Analyse | Evaluate | Create | |
Factual knowledge | Lists alternative energy sources (TR) | Classifies the elements according to their place in the periodic system (TR) | ||||
Conceptual knowledge | Names ionic-bonded compounds systematically (TR) | Explains the process of chemistry becoming science (TR) | Uses scientific terminology to describe matter and describe chemical phenomena (CZ) | Explains the importance of sustainable life and development for society and environment by associating with chemistry (TR) | Characterizes basic metabolic processes and their significance (CZ) | |
Procedural knowledge | Understands how chemical knowledge is built through experimentation and related modelling (FI) | Calculates the reaction enthalpy through standard formation enthalpy (TR) | Estimates properties of elements and their behaviour in chemical processes based on findings about periodic table of elements (CZ) | Is able to study different chemical phenomena experimentally and using different models as well as take into account occupational safety aspects (FI) | ||
Metacognitive knowledge | Evaluates the developments in nanotechnology in terms of its effects on science, society, technology, environment, and economy (TR) | Is able to inquire phenomena relating to organic compounds, the amount of substance, and concentration through experimentation and by using different models (FI) |
This paper has six authors, two from each country whose curriculum objectives were analysed. At the beginning, the first, second, third, and sixth authors met in person several times to plan the procedure and ensure they had a shared understanding of the RBT, and the consistency of the codes was uniform. Two researchers first independently analysed their national curriculum. A third coder then analysed approximately 20% of the objectives. The third coder's opinion on the disputable objectives served to support the original coders’ when they revisited their coding and managed to reach a conclusion by discussion. This was the case in six objectives in the Finnish curriculum, 14 in the Czech curriculum and 16 in the Turkish curriculum. For this purpose, the official English translation of the Finnish and Czech curriculum was used; the Turkish curriculum was translated by the members of the research team as there is no official English translation of the curricula. Special attention was paid to the verbs during the translations. After that, the original two researchers discussed the particular objectives again to reach a consensus. The Kohen's kappa values and percentage agreement for the original independent within-country inter-rater agreements are shown in Table 2.
Within-country inter-rater kappa values | Within-country inter-rater agreement (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cognitive process dimensions | Knowledge dimensions | Cognitive process dimensions | Knowledge dimensions | |
Czechia | 0.68 (substantial agreement) | 0.78 (substantial agreement) | 80 | 86.67 |
Finland | 0.58 (moderate agreement) | 0.77 (substantial agreement) | 68 | 85 |
Turkey | 0.94 (almost perfect agreement) | 0.90 (almost perfect agreement) | 97.64 | 94.49 |
As far as the educational objectives are concerned, the Czech and Finnish upper-secondary school chemistry curricula contain a smaller number of more complexly formulated objectives (15 resp. 17). In contrast, the Turkish upper-secondary chemistry curriculum contains 127 objectives. Although objectives that are more complex imply higher intellectual demands, teachers may have difficulty in aligning the intended curriculum with their school curriculum (its implementation and assessment). The implemented (school) curriculum uses these complexly formulated objectives broken down into specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-specific objectives (cf.Skrbic and Burrows, 2014) for both implementation and assessment. Correspondingly, the alignment between the curriculum's learning objectives and both its implementation and assessment can be done easily via defining smart learning objectives rather than too broad learning goals (Chatterjee and Corral, 2017). For more information about the structure of the curricula, see Table 3 below.
CZ | FI | TR | |
---|---|---|---|
General chemistry | Chemistry all around | 9th grade | 11th grade |
Systems of substances and their composition | Significance of chemistry for the present time, further studies and the world of work | 1. Chemistry as a Science | 1. Modern atom theory |
Quantities and calculations in chemistry | The main characteristics of the structure of the atom and the periodic system | Alchemy to chemistry | Quantum model of the atom |
Atomic structure | Properties of substances and compounds | Chemical discipline and chemists' working areas | Periodic system and electron configurations |
The periodic table of elements | Explaining the properties of substances based on the structure of matter, chemical bonds, and polarity | The symbolic language of chemistry | Periodic properties |
Chemical bonds and properties of substances | Questions as the basis for information acquisition | Occupational health and safety in chemical applications | Get to know the elements |
Temperature changes in chemical reactions | Working safely, methods for separating substances, examining, observing and making a conclusion on the properties of substances | 2. Atom and periodic system | Oxidation states |
Rates of chemical reactions and chemical equilibrium | The chemistry of man and the living environment | Atom models | 2. Gases |
Inorganic chemistry | The significance of chemistry for well-being and health | Structure of atom | Properties of gases and gas laws |
Hydrogen and its compounds | Modelling and describing the structure of organic compounds, such as hydrocarbons, and oxygen and nitrogen compounds, with different models | Periodic system | Ideal gas law |
s-Elements and their compounds | Molecular geometry and isometry | 3. Interactions between chemical species | Kinetic theory of gases |
p-Elements and their compounds | Describing the properties of organic compounds with their structure | Chemical species | Gas mixtures |
d- and f-elements and their compounds | Amount of substances and concentration | Classification of interactions between chemical species | Real gases |
Organic chemistry | The use of tools and reagents and preparing solutions, | Strong interactions | 3. Liquid solutions and solubility |
Hydrocarbons and their classification | The methods of analysing the structure of substances, such as spectroscopy | Weak interactions | Solvent–solute interactions |
Hydrocarbon derivatives and their classification | Reaction and energy | Physical and chemical changes | Concentration units |
Heterocyclic compounds | The significance of chemistry for energy solution and the environment | 4. States of matter | Colligative properties |
Synthetic macromolecular substances | The symbolic representation and balancing of chemical reactions | The physical states of matter | Solubility |
Drugs, pesticides, colouring agents and detergents | Reactions of inorganic and organic compounds and their applications | Solids | Factors affecting solubility |
Biochemistry | The conservation of energy in a chemical reaction, binding energy, and Hess's law | Liquids | 4. The energy in chemical reactions |
Lipids | The properties of gasses and the Ideal Gas Law | Gases | Heat exchange in reactions |
Saccharides | Materials and technology | Plasma | Formation enthalpy |
Proteins | The significance of chemistry in technology and society | 5. Nature and chemistry | Bond energy |
Nucleic acids | The properties use and the life cycle of metals and polymers | Water and life | Summability of reaction heats |
Enzymes, vitamins, and hormones | The valence electron structure of an atom and the periodic system in explaining the properties of elements | Environmental chemistry | 5. Speed in chemical reactions |
Oxidation numbers and redox reactions | 10th grade | Reaction rates | |
Key principles of electrochemistry: electrochemical series, standard electrode potentials, chemical cells and electrolysis | 1. The basic laws of chemistry and chemical calculations | Factors affecting reaction rate | |
Designing and planning of an experiment or problem-solving | Basic laws of chemistry | 6. Equilibrium in chemical reactions | |
The role of collaboration in producing chemical information | Mole concept | Chemical equilibrium | |
Reactions and equilibrium | Chemical reactions and equations | Factors affecting equilibrium | |
The significance of chemistry in building a sustainable future | Calculations in chemical reactions | Aqueous solution equilibrium | |
Reaction rate and the factor that affects it | 2. Mixtures | 12th grade | |
Homogenous and heterogeneous equilibrium and factors affecting the equilibrium | Homogeneous and heterogeneous mixtures | 1. Chemistry and electricity | |
Acid–base equilibrium, strong and weak acids and bases, and buffer solutions | Separation and purification techniques | Electric current in reduction–oxidation reactions | |
Graphical presentations related to equilibrium | 3. Acids, bases, and salts | Electrodes and electrochemical cells | |
Computational processing of homogenous and acid–base equilibrium | Acids and bases | Electrode potentials | |
Evaluation of research findings and process | Reactions of acids and bases | Electricity production from chemicals | |
Acids and bases in our lives | Electrolysis | ||
Salts | Corrosion | ||
4. Chemistry is everywhere | 2. Basics of carbon chemistry | ||
Common daily life chemicals | Inorganic and organic compounds | ||
Foods | Basic formula and molecular formula | ||
Carbon in nature | |||
Lewis formulas | |||
Hybridization-molecular geometries | |||
3. Organic compounds | |||
Hydrocarbons | |||
Functional groups | |||
Alcohols | |||
Ethers | |||
Carbonyl compounds | |||
Carboxylic acids | |||
Esters | |||
4. Energy sources and scientific developments | |||
Fossil fuels | |||
Alternative energy resources | |||
Sustainability | |||
Nanotechnology |
Remember | Understand | Apply | Analyse | Evaluate | Create | No. of knowledge items | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentages are shown in parentheses (%). | |||||||
Factual | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Conceptual | 0 | 3 (20) | 2 (13.3) | 0 | 3 (20) | 0 | 8 (53.3) |
Procedural | 0 | 0 | 6 (40) | 1 (6.7) | 0 | 0 | 7 (46.7) |
Metacognitive | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of cognitive items | 0 | 3 (20) | 8 (40) | 1 (6.7) | 3 (20) | 0 | 15 |
Remember | Understand | Apply | Analyse | Evaluate | Create | Number of knowledge items | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentages are shown in parentheses (%). | |||||||
Factual | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Conceptual | 0 | 1 (5.9) | 6 (35.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 (41.2) |
Procedural | 0 | 2 (11.8) | 2 (11.8) | 1 (5.9) | 1 (5.9) | 0 | 6 (35.3) |
Metacognitive | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 (23.5) | 4 (23.5) |
Number of cognitive items | 0 | 3 (17.6) | 8 (47.1) | 1 (5.9) | 1 (5.9) | 4 (23.5) | 17 |
Remember | Understand | Apply | Analyse | Evaluate | Create | Number of knowledge items | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentages are shown in parentheses (%). | |||||||
Factual | 3 (2.4) | 6 (4.7) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 (7.1) |
Conceptual | 3 (2.4) | 66 (52) | 1 (0.8) | 6 (4.8) | 0 | 0 | 76 (59.8) |
Procedural | 0 | 26 (20.5) | 8 (6.3) | 3 (2.4) | 0 | 0 | 37 (29.1) |
Metacognitive | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (1.6) | 3 (2.4) | 5 (3.9) |
Number of cognitive items | 6 (4.7) | 98 (77.2) | 9 (7.1) | 9 (7.1) | 2 (1.6) | 3 (2.4) | 127 |
The cognitive demands in the Czech curriculum were skewed toward apply (40%) with understand and evaluate accordingly represented by 20%. No objectives in either remember or create were identified, neither factual nor metacognitive knowledge objectives. The conceptual items dominate with a 53.3% occurrence (Table 4).
In the Finnish chemistry curriculum, the cognitive demands were skewed toward apply (47.1%) with create (23.5%) and understand (17.6%). The dimension remember was not identified among the Finnish objectives. Also, no factual item was identified with conceptual (41.2%) and with procedural (35.3%) domains predominating, although metacognitive objectives represent a significant share (23.5%) – see Table 5.
In the Turkish curriculum, the domineering objectives in cognitive demands were represented by understand (77.2%) with analyse and apply (both 7.1%). Compared to the other two categories, the percentage of items in understand is more than tenfold. Conceptual items dominated (59.8%) with procedural items identified (29.1%). Also, there are five metacognitive items (3.9%) – see Table 6.
To compare the three countries’ upper-secondary chemistry curricula, Fig. 1 and 2 are shown. Compared to the Turkish curriculum, with 77% of the items in understand, the Czech and Finnish curricula are more balanced (Fig. 1). In the case of the Czech and Finnish curriculum objectives, a focus on apply was noticed. In addition, remember did not appear in the Finnish or Czech curriculum and only 4.7% in the Turkish curriculum. In the create category, no objectives appeared in the Czech curriculum, only 2.4% in the Turkish curriculum and 23.5% in the Finnish curriculum. Analyse, evaluate, and create are considered upper-level categories. The highest percentage of objectives from the three upper-level categories (35.3%) appeared in the Finnish, second (26.7%) in the Czech and third (11.1%) in the Turkish curriculum.
In the knowledge dimension, only the Turkish curriculum contains objectives in the factual knowledge dimension (7.1%), and neither Czech nor Finnish curriculum contains such objectives (Fig. 2). As far as the conceptual dimension is concerned, the highest percentage (59.8%) was identified in the Turkish curriculum, followed by the Czech (53.3) and the Finnish (41.2). Together with the procedural dimension, these dominate in the three analysed curricula. In the metacognitive category, 23.5% of the Finnish curriculum objectives appeared. Compared to this, the Turkish curriculum contains only 3.9% of the objectives; there are no objectives in this category in the Czech chemistry curriculum.
In cognitive processes, the Czech curriculum is similar to the Finnish, with no objectives in the remember cognitive process dimension and a similar share of objectives in understand, apply, and analyse. However, the Finnish curriculum stands out with more than 23% of the objectives in the create dimension. The Czech chemistry curriculum, on the contrary, does not contain any objectives in this dimension. This may be caused by the year of its creation. The curriculum developers may not have been that familiar with the RBT, therefore being attached to the original Bloom's taxonomy with evaluate as the top dimension. Also, creativity has been emphasized in many science education policy documents only after developing the present Czech chemistry curriculum for secondary schools (Hazelkorn et al., 2015). Thus, by providing a framework for assessment, the RBT helps curriculum developers go beyond factual knowledge and comprehension and accent higher cognitive skills such as application, analysis, evaluation, and creation (Jideani and Jideani, 2012). The Turkish curriculum covers all the cognitive process dimensions, despite being in small proportions. The majority of its objectives feature in the understand dimension (77.2%) and, in comparison with the other two analysed curricula, several (4.7%) objectives in the remember dimension. This could be explained by the Czech and Finnish curricula having the lower cognitive processes hidden under the higher-order objectives implicitly, whereas they are explicit in the extensive Turkish curriculum. They may also already be introduced as objectives in the curricula for lower grades but analysing this is beyond the scope of this study. Similar to the findings in the Czech and Finnish curricula, Wei (2020) also found higher cognitive process levels in the Senior High School Chemistry Curriculum in China. On the contrary, the Turkish curriculum might not be representative of a shift from simple recollection to more complex skills in chemistry (cf.Edwards, 2010). Another reason behind the lower cognitive skills in the Turkish curriculum might be that assessing lower cognitive skills through multiple-choice items in nation-wide examinations (e.g., university admission examinations) is easier and more reliable than assessing higher cognitive skills. Curriculum developers in Turkey might state learning objectives at lower cognitive levels, explicitly thinking about the feasibility of assessing millions of upper-secondary school students taking university entrance examinations more easily and fairly. Again, with respect to the link between the state and school curricula, this step can also prevent the objectives from being altered by teachers (Son and Kim, 2015) and therefore translated into school practice differently than intended by the curriculum developers.
Similar to the cognitive processes, the Turkish chemistry curriculum covers all four knowledge dimensions, although it strongly focuses on conceptual and procedural knowledge (almost 90% of objectives in these two dimensions). The Czech curriculum is similar in its emphasis on these two dimensions with no objectives in the others. In the Finnish curriculum, these are also domineering dimensions; however, there are over 20% of the objectives in the metacognitive dimension too. The distribution of conceptual and procedural knowledge at higher percentages might be explained by the nature of the school subject/course (Ang, 2019). Correspondingly, Ang (2019) found that conceptual and procedural knowledge explained the majority of learning objectives, and procedural knowledge is particularly dominant in chemistry and physics curricula because using calculations, investigating, and applying in new contexts are characteristic domains in these two subjects. There was no significant difference found in these among the three analysed curricula. The Czech and Turkish curricula authors should consider having more metacognitive knowledge dimension objectives incorporated in further editions because the evidence related to its effectiveness comes from contemporary cognitive science research (Wei and Ou, 2018). An example of its functionality can be found, for example, in the newly emerging Senior High School Chemistry Curriculum in China, where it poses a challenging objective (Wei, 2020).
We can also argue that despite reforming schools by policymakers, changes in the intended curricula also consider the opinions and approaches of teachers. For example, the Finnish curriculum was developed with teachers significantly involved in the process. In the case of the Czech curriculum, teachers also commented on the draft of the curriculum. It is then reasonable to infer that teachers project their practice to shape the curriculum, and it, in a way, reflects their concept of teaching into the intended curriculum. Therefore, we can argue that most learning objectives in the Turkish written chemistry curriculum outline the skill of understanding, while those in the Czech and Finnish chemistry curricula use the skills of applying and analysing. This supposition could explain the results in PISA (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2019). The results suggest the students’ level of scientific literacy, which is mostly built on the application of science's conceptual and procedural knowledge (Janoušková et al., 2019; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2016). The emphasis on understanding may be the cause of Turkish students’ lower PISA results compared to Czech or Finnish students. The correlation of PISA results can be seen with both cognitive and knowledge results (Fig. 1 and 2) if we consider the levels as an ordinal scale. This might be noticed here, even though not analysed statistically in any sense.
Analysis such as that presented is being made to ensure the alignment of instruction and testing, i.e., support the implemented and attained curriculum. The evidence of the requirement to develop higher-order cognitive processes requires a completely different approach from generic frontal teaching (Raiyn and Tilchin, 2015). The intended chemistry curricula analysed in this study imply more than lecturing or direct instruction because the cognitive level of learning objectives require teachers to do more student-centred education which involves experiences, making them learn actively. Drawing teachers’ attention is one of the main appeals of this paper. Another target group is teacher trainers, (science) education experts, and also textbook authors who help to shape the methods teachers use in their practice. From the scientific literacy development point of view, the results could bring evidence for the need for Turkish curriculum change. Objectives focusing on understanding are not sufficient and do not give teachers the necessary impulse to foster their students’ scientific literacy. It is considered to be more effective when being more explicitly anchored in the national curriculum (Janoušková et al., 2019).
This study was focused on the upper-secondary chemistry curriculum, which could be seen as a limitation when no information on the lower-secondary education objectives was provided. Although lower-secondary education creates the base for future studies, chemistry is not taught as a separate school subject at the lower-secondary level in many countries. Besides, upper-secondary school chemistry education contains the full breadth of the field students are presented with. For this reason, the upper-secondary chemistry curriculum was chosen for the analysis.
Another limitation of this study could be seen as its focus on the intended curriculum. The findings of this study should be cautiously interpreted because of this intended versus implemented curriculum difference, not to mention the attained curriculum difference, since there are no data from in-class observations related to what is going on in a chemistry classroom in these three countries. It is appropriate to say that the intended chemistry curriculum in any of the countries is only one factor that can influence students’ chemistry learning outcomes and cannot adequately present the overall picture of chemistry education in the country. To be able to assess education's reality, the implemented curriculum needs to be observed and analysed. A combination of the data from lesson observations, curriculum objective analysis, and national exam results could enable triangulated, solid data for future evidence-based curriculum reform. For example, Yasar and Sozbilir (2019) concluded that there is no congruence between the intended, perceived and observed chemistry curriculum according to the data collected through interviews with teachers and observations of their chemistry lessons. In other words, the chemistry curriculum is not perceived and implemented as constructivist as it is intended (see Lepik et al., 2015; Mullis et al., 2012). In this case, policymakers’ control, as well as attempts for innovation, are diminished and the role of commercial curricula (cf.Hemmi et al., 2013), including textbooks, grows.
Footnote |
† This study is an extended version of the paper entitled, “A Comparative Analysis of the High School Chemistry Curriculum Objectives in Czechia and Turkey based on the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy” presented at the 8th International Conference New Perspectives in Science Education held on March 21–22, 2019 in Florence, Italy. |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020 |