A comparative study of high school mathematic curricula in Turkey, Estonia, Canada, and Singapore

The aim of this study was to reveal the similarities and the differences in the secondary mathematics curriculums of Turkey, Estonia, Canada and Singapore during 2018-2019 academic years by comparing them in terms of the curriculum elements. This research was a qualitative research and document analysis was used to collect data as content analysis method was used to analyze the data on the secondary mathematics curriculum. The research data was analyzed by using NVivo 10 program to carry out the content analysis. Horizontal approach, one of the comparative education approaches, was used. In accordance with the data obtained, the comparisons were made by creating themes in terms of the objectives, contents, learning-teaching processes, and measurement and evaluation situations of the curriculum. The structure of the program, number of pages, titles, competencies in the program, values and the most frequently used expressions were included in order to examine the general features of the program. The secondary mathematics curriculums of Turkey and Singapore were prepared with a spiral approach while those of Estonia and Canada were prepared with a linear approach. There were some statements related to competencies and values in the curriculums of Turkey and Estonia while those of Canada and Singapore focused on mathematical skills more. When the most frequently used statements were examined, the term 'problem' was commonly used in all teaching programs. The analysis of objectives was divided into three parts: general objectives, goals and achievements across the program. General objectives and objectives across the program were categorized using the classification of Posner and Rudnitsky. It was found out that the goals were generally in the cognitive domain, there weren't many goals in the affective domain, and there was no information about the psychomotor domain. The cognitive domain classification of TIMSS was used to analyze the gains. The curriculums of Turkey and Estonia gave importance to the gains in the stage of "knowing" utmost while Canada's curriculum in the stage of "practice" area, Singapore's curriculum in the stage of "reasoning" In the content analysis, the learning areas and subject distributions specified in the curriculums were shown in tables and examined. In addition, the mathematics framework which the Singapore' curriculum was based on was given here. The subject contents were examined with gains and were presented in tables. It was found out that limit, derivative and integral subjects were available in the curriculums of Turkey and Estonia while those of Canada and Singapore excluded these issues. During the examination of learning-teaching processes, the information about the approaches, methods and techniques used in the process, teaching principles, features of the learning environment, educational inputs, and the responsibilities and duties of the teacher were obtained. In addition, the information about the specific features and process skills of mathematics specified in the curriculums of Canada and Singapore were presented in tables. It was found out that the curriculum of Singapore reflected the learning-teaching process and the duties and responsibilities of teacher in the most comprehensive way. It was also seen that the curriculum of Canada emphasized different ethnic groups living in the country and their culture while the curriculums of Turkey and Estonia had the statements regarding the teaching and learning process but not in detail. In the evaluation part, the information about the type of evaluation, methods and tools and issues to be considered in the programs were obtained. Although the mathematis curriculum of Turkey didn't have any types or methods related to testing and evaluation, it recommended to use different methods and gave some statements regarding the issues to be considered during assessment process. Even though that of Estonia was not very detailed in the general framework, it provided information on all topics related to measurement and evaluation. The most detailed information on the evaluation process was given by that of Singapore. It was highly confusing that the curriculum of Canada provided little or no information on the evaluation.