SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 2021 - Sayı: 28

Life Science Curriculum and Textbooks:The Comparison of Turkey and Russia

Nur ÜTKÜR GÜLLÜHAN
Elvira GULSEINOVA
Pages
79–99
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Turkishand Russian Life Sciences Curriculum and textbooks were similar overall but hadsome differences concerning content.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to investigate the similarities and differences between curriculumand textbook contents of Life Sciences course in Turkey and World Around coursein Russia.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To that end, curriculum and textbooks of Life Sciences and World Aroundin effect in both countries in the academic year of 2019-2020 were examined.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Turkishand Russian Life Sciences Curriculum and textbooks were similar overall but hadsome differences concerning content.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2019-2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

This study aimed to investigate the similarities and differences between curriculumand textbook contents of Life Sciences course in Turkey and World Around coursein Russia. To that end, curriculum and textbooks of Life Sciences and World Aroundin effect in both countries in the academic year of 2019-2020 were examined. Inthe present study, using the intertwined single-case design of qualitative researchdesigns, document review was opted for as the measure. The data achieved weresubjected to descriptive content analysis. Codes, categories and themes utilized inthe analysis of curriculum and textbooks were shaped in accordance with thecontents of curriculum and textbooks in light of similar studies in the literature.Main features of the curriculum and textbooks and how subjects were presentedwere examined within the framework of activity and assessment practices. Turkishand Russian Life Sciences Curriculum and textbooks were similar overall but hadsome differences concerning content. Consequently, it was concluded that it wouldbe more relevant to integrate certain activities and methods that would bring thestudents closer to real life into the Turkish Life Sciences textbooks.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLLÜHAN, N. Ü., GULSEINOVA, E. (2022). Life Science Curriculum and Textbooks:The Comparison of Turkey and Russia. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 2021 - Sayı: 28, 79–99. https://ajindex.com/articles/496901

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Aerni, P.W. (2008). Teacher self-efficacy and beliefs for teaching mathematics in inclusion settings (Doctoral Dissertation). The College of William and Mary in Virginia. UMI number: 3353198. Ahsan, M.T., Deppeler, J.M., & Sharma, U. (2013) Predicting pre-service teachers’ preparedness for inclusive education: Bangladeshi pre-service teachers’ attitudes and perceived teaching-efficacy for inclusive education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 517-535. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.834036
  2. Akdag, Z. & Haser, Ç. (2017). Beginning early childhood education teachers’ struggle with inclusion in Turkey. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(2), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2016.1273197
  3. Akman, B. Uzun, E.M. & Yazici, D.N. (2018). Comparison of pre-school teachers’ and pre-service teachers’ views on inclusion. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14.(1), 96-114.
  4. Anderson, S. L., & Gumus, S. (2006). Preparing pre‐service secondary education majors for inclusive classrooms in the USA, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(6), 529-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110500221693
  5. Ari, A. & Sonmez Kartal, M.(2018).Tüm Öğretmenlik programlari için özel eğitime giriş.[Introduction to special education for all teacher education programmes]. Eğitim Yayınevi Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/ inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17 (2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
  6. Ballone, L. M., & Czerniak, C. M. (2001) Teachers’ beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 4-29.
  7. Baykoc, N. (2015). Özel eğitim.[Special education]. Eğiten Kitap Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195.207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205
  8. Cavkaytar, A. (2013). Özel eğitim.[Special education]. Vize Yayıncılık Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quanitative and qualitative Research. Upper saddle river, Pearson Education, Inc. DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R.S. (2006a). Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs about inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21 (2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00210.x
  9. DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006b