Qualitative analysis compares Turkiye’s education model with China’s curriculum, indicating differences in assessment and sustainability.
Aim: This study compares the science and mathematics curricula of the Turkiye Century Education Model and China’s 2022 Compulsory Education Curriculum across key structural indicators.Methods: The study adopted a qualitative comparative design and examined official curriculum documents and related literature using document analysis.Findings: Both curricula are structured around holistic development, 21st-century competencies, literacy, and process-based assessment. The Türkiye education model prioritizes meaningful learning by simplifying content and linking it to daily life, grounded in the “Whole Person” paradigm. Conversely, the Chinese curriculum adopts a standardized, scalable teaching–learning process based on the “five educations together” approach and core competencies. In the Türkiye education model, sustainability is integrated into literacy and unit structures, while in China, it is framed within school–family–community cooperation. For assessment, the Türkiye education model constructs a process-oriented holistic approach (e.g., rubrics, performance tasks) as “evidence of learning,” whereas China’s system emphasizes standardized item banks and quality-monitoring mechanisms.Originality/Value: This study presents the first structured analysis comparing Turkiye’s 2024 education model and China's 2022 updated curricula on fundamental elements: aims, content, sustainability, and assessment. Providing significant insights for educational policy, the research also offers a coding scheme for future curriculum comparison studies
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tutak et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: