Comparison of Turkish and Canadian Social Studies Curricula in terms of Values Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to compare 2005 Turkish and Canadian Social Studies Curricula in terms of values education. This research was conducted based on document analysis which is one of the patterns of qualitative research approach. The K4-7 social studies curricula which have been implemented in Turkey since 2005 and the K4-7 social studies curricula which have been implemented in Alberta, Canada since 2005 constitute the data of this research. Data were analyzed using an inductive approach. The results of the research were obtained by interpretation of the findings with this process. According to the first result of the research, values in the Social Studies Curriculum in Canada are given as learning outcomes in a title of "values and attitude". When the number of values to be given to the students was compared to class levels, there is not much difference in the number of values to be given to the students in the 4th to 7th-grade Social Studies Curriculum in Turkey. But in Canadian programs, although the number of values that intend to acquire students at the 4th and 5th-grade levels is intense, this number is decreasing at 6th and 7th-grade levels. According to another result, while intangible and tangible values are included in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th-grade levels of the Social Studies Curriculum in Turkey, tangible values such as environmental protection and love of nature are frequently in the 4th and 5th-grade levels of Canadian programs. On the other hand, values related to democracy gain importance in the 6th and 7th-grade levels. In the direction of the results of the research, it is suggested that values can be given as learning outcomes in order to guide to teachers and the values to be included in the curriculum can be distributed in a balanced manner considering the value categories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".