Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistance professor, University of Kordestan

Abstract

The present research compared the contents of primary school science textbooks of Iran with those of the United state of America (Science Anytime). Content analysis was used as method of research. Furthermore, the following were used as the indicators of analysis:
A: Taxonomy of education objectives: Cognitive domain.
B: Mental functions dimension in Guilford’s structure of intellect.
C: Taxonomy of education objectives by Merrill.
The research findings indicate that the basic differences between school textbooks of the two systems lie in the questions and homework. That means the bulk and variation of scientific activities presented in the Science Anytime text books are more than those in the Iranian texts. Moreover, In Science Anytime textbooks, facts, concepts, procedures and principles are presented in a balanced way. Therefore, it is recommended that in Iranian science textbooks should be compiled in such a way to pave the way for the involvement of students in scientific activities. Moreover Science Anytime textbooks are more applicable than Iranian science textbooks.
 

Keywords

احمدی، غلامعلی (1385). بررسی میزان همخوانی و هماهنگی بین سه برنامه‌ی درسی قصد شده. اجرا شده و کسب شده در برنامه‌ی جدید آموزش علوم دوره‌ی ابتدایی، فصلنامه‌ی تعلیم و تربیت، شماره‌ی 86، ص 51.
دفتر برنامه‌ریزی و تألیف کتاب‌های درسی (1385). کتاب راهنمای معلّم علوم دورهی ابتدایی. اداره‌ی کلّ چاپ و توزیع کتاب‌های درسی، تهران: وزارت آموزش و پرورش.
دفتر برنامه‌ریزی و تألیف کتاب‌های درسی (1385). مجموعه‌ی کتاب‌های درسی علوم دوره‌ی ابتدایی. اداره‌ی کلّ چاپ و توزیع کتاب‌های درسی، تهران: وزارت آموزش و پرورش.
زمانی، بی‌بی عشرت (1387). مقایسه‌ی پرورش روحیّه‌ی علمی و علم‌گرایی در کتاب‌های درسی علوم دوره‌ی ابتدایی کشورهای ایران و انگلستان. مجله‌ی علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز (ویژه‌نامه‌ی‌ علومتربیتی)، شماره‌ی 3.
قادری، مصطفی (1387). نه جهانی نه بومی: جستاری در هویّت گم‌شده‌ی برنامه‌های درسی ایران. مقاله‌ی چاپ شده. هشتمین همایش انجمن مطالعات برنامه درسی ایران، بابلسر: دانشگاه مازندران، دوّم و سوّم آبان.
کیامنش، علیرضا (1996). گزارش سومین مطالعه بین‌المللی ریاضیات و علوم (علوم دوره‌ی ابتدایی). نشریه‌ی شماره‌ی 4
 
لاتین
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benjamin, B., Max, D. Engle hart., E. J. F. Walker, H. H., David, R. K. (1956). Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. Edited by: Benjamin Bloom. David McKay Company, Inc.
Boscardin, C. K., Jones, B., Nishimura, C., Madsen, S,. Park, J. (2008). Assessment of Content Understanding Through Science Explanation Tasks. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Graduate School of Education & Information Studies .UCLA.
Chiang-Soong, B., & Yager, R. E. (1993). The inclusion of STS material in the most frequently used secondary science textbooks in the USA. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (4), pp. 339-349.
Colorado Department of Education (2007). Colorado Model Content Standards Science. Office of Learning & Results.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. New York: Rutledge.
Eichinger, D., & Roth, K. J. (1991). Critical analysis of an elementary science curriculum: Bouncing around or conntedness? East Lansing, MI: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.
Gagne, M. R. (1978). Educational Research and Development: Past and future," in Robert Glaser (ed), Research and De4velopment and School Change. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Gall, M. D., Borg,W. R., Gall, J., P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.), hite Plains, N Y: Longman.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Three faces of inellect. American Psychologist, 14.
Harcourt brace & Company (1995). Science Anytime. Science. Textbook Series, Grade 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. U.S.A.
Harcourt brace & Company (1995). Science Anytime. Teacher's Guide Series, Grade 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. U.S.A.
 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lake, J. A. (2000). Literature and science breakthroughs: Connecting Language and Science skills in elementary classroom. Ontario: Pembroke.
Lin, H., Gorrell, J. (2002). Influence of culture and education on U.S. and Taiwan pre-service teachers' efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, pp. 37-46.
Lumpe, A. T. (1991). Meeting contemporary goals for lab instruction: A content of two secondary biology textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 91 (6), pp. 231-235.
Morris, P. (1998). The Hong Kong school curriculum: development, issue and polices. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C: National Academy Press.
NC Department of Public Instruction (2006). North Carolina Extended Content Standards. Extensions of the Standard Course of Study for Science.
Palmer, W. P. (2007). Finding out more about a little known children’s science textbook author: a case study of Mary Amelia Swift, illustrating the power and pitfalls of internet at the VIPSI-Slvenia-2007 Lake Bled Conference, (8 October to 11 October).
Rearden, K. T., Broemmel, A. D. (2008). Beyond the Talking Groundhogs: Trends in Science Trade Books, Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20 (2), pp. 39-49.
Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U. S. science and mathematics education. London: Kluwer Academic.
Short, K. G., & Armstrong, J. (1993). Moving toward inquiry: Integrating literature into the science curriculum. New Advocate, 6, pp. 183-200.
Wang, H. A. (1998). Science Textbook Studies Reanalysis: Teachers "Friendly" Content Analysis Methods? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of National for Research in Science Teaching (San Diego, CA, April 19-22, 1998).
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed. 49). Newbury Park, C A: Sage Publications.