Lower secondary intended curricula of science subjects and mathematics: a comparison of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland and Slovenia

Figures & data

Table 1. Cognitive processes of revised Bloom’s taxonomy (based on Anderson et al., 2001)

Cognitive process	Definition	Examples of typical active verbs involved
Remember	The student can recall or remember the information.	Define, duplicate, list, memorize, recall, repeat, reproduce, state
Understand	The student can explain ideas or concepts.	Classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, paraphrase, recognize, report, select, translate
Apply	The student can use the information in a new way.	Choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, schedule, sketch, solve, use, write
Analyse	The student can distinguish between the different parts.	Appraise, compare, contrast, criticize, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test
Evaluate	The student can justify a stand or decision.	Appraise, argue, defend,evaluate, judge, select, support, value
Create	The student can create new product or point of view.	Assemble, construct, create, design, develop, formulate, write

Table 2. The major types and subtypes of the knowledge dimension (based on Anderson et al., 2001)

Major types of knowledge	Subtypes	Examples
A. Factual: The basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it	AA. Knowledge of terminology	Unit of rate, unit of force
	AB. Knowledge of specific details and elements	Some common danger warning symbols
B. Conceptual: The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together	BA. Knowledge of classifications and categories	The nature of force
	BB. Knowledge of principles andgeneralizations	Energy conservation law
	BC. Knowledge of theories,models, and structures	Structure of atom, theory of evolution
C. Procedural: How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods	CA. Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms	Friction calculation
	CB. Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods	Scientific methods
	CC. Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures	The criteria used to determine when to apply Newton’s second law
D. Meta-cognitive: Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition	DA. Strategic knowledge	Knowledge of outlining as a means of capturing the structure of a unit of subject matter in a textbook
	DB. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge	Knowledge of the cognitive demands of different tasks
	DC. Self-knowledge	Awareness of one’s own knowledge level

Table 3. Numbers of obligatory learning outcomes prescribed by national curricula; the percentages between parentheses show the percentage of specific subjects in the total number of outcomes of the country (which is reported in the last row of the table)

	Czech Republic (CZC)	Estonia (ESTC)	Poland (PLC)	Slovenia (SLOC)
Biology	31 (21%)	125 (30%)	109 (25%)	187 (21%)
Chemistry	27 (18%)	62 (15%)	84 (19%)	98 (11%)
Geography	29 (19%)	84 (20%)	69 (16%)	158 (18%)
Geology	6 (4%)	11 (3%)	6 (1%)	10 (1%)
Mathematics	29 (19%)	35 (8%)	73 (17%)	262 (29%)
Physics	29 (19%)	95 (23%)	95 (22%)	175 (20%)
Total per country	151	412	436	890

Table 4. Percentages of complex learning outcomes requiring two or more types of knowledge

	Czech Republic (CZC)	Estonia (ESTC)	Poland (PLC)	Slovenia (SLOC)
Biology	16%	20%	29%	12%
Chemistry	52%	34%	44%	10%
Geography	31%	33%	22%	6%
Mathematics	28%	29%	3%	15%
Physics	31%	52%	16%	8%
Share per country	30%	33%	24%	11%

Table 5. Percentages of learning outcomes requiring the corresponding combination of type of knowledge (F, C, P and M) and cognitive process (RE, UN, AP, AN, EV and CR)

Figure 1. Percentages of learning outcomes requiring different types of knowledge

Figure 2. Percentages of learning outcomes requiring specific cognitive processes

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). Longman.

 Google Scholar