Analysis of Education Transition Dynamics in Hong Kong, Finland, Russia and Türkiye
Öz
The aim of the study is to analyze the transition systems between educational levels in Hong Kong and Finland, whose success rates have not decreased since they participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and in Russia and Turkey, which generally remain below the average success rate. The transition system between educational levels, which plays a key role in ensuring continuity and equality in education, is shaped according to the countries' unique educational policies and systems. The screening model was used in the study. The study's main sources of data are public documents like laws, rules, and generalizations about the education systems of the countries that were mentioned and how they move from one level to the next. It also uses documents from groups that look at and compare education systems, such as the OECD, World Bank, Eurydice, and the European Commission, as well as studies that are related to these countries. Within this framework, the data in the study were scanned from relevant sources, described, and compared. The “document analysis” technique was also applied in the analysis of the data. The education systems and transition systems between educational levels in Hong Kong, Finland, Russia and Turkey are discussed based on documents and sources. Education in Turkey and Russia is more based on academic and theoretical foundations. The education systems of Hong Kong and Finland are based more on learning by experiencing different experiences and perspectives. Although there are differences in the transition process from general education to high school education, the completion of undergraduate education is the main point of transition to graduate education; however, the admission requirements may vary in terms of the purpose and process of graduate education.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Education Systems, Transitions Between Educational Levels, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), The Screening Model, Document Analysis.
Etik Beyan
Kaynakça
- Adamson, B., & Li Siu Pang, T. (2005). Primary and secondary schooling. In M. Bray & R. Koo (Eds.), Education and society in Hong Kong and Macao: Comparative perspectives on continuity and change (2nd ed., pp. 35–61). The Netherlands: Springer.
- Agasisti, T., & Zoido, P. (2018). Comparing the efficiency of schools through international benchmarking: Results from an empirical analysis of OECD PISA 2012 data. Educational Researcher, 47(6), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18777495
- Aksoy, E., & Gözütok, D. (2014). Transformations in teacher education in the United States, Finland, Singapore, and Turkey. Educational Sciences and Practice Journal, 13(25), 23–46.
- Akyol, B., Erkoç, N., & Öztaban, Ö. (2024). Comparison of the education management systems of China, Australia, Russia, and Argentina. Manas Journal of Social Studies, 13(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1296390
- Akyüz, Y. (2020). Turkish education history. Ankara: Pegem Publishing.
- Altemir, C. (2018). Educational governance in Turkey: From the view of New Public Management and New Social Movement Theories. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(2), 438–452.
- Apaydın, Ç. (2015). Singapore education system. In A. Balcı (Ed.), Comparative education systems (pp. 523–546). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Publishing.
- Aslan, G., & Küçüker, E. (2010, June). Why do parents send their children to private schools? In F. Gök (Ed.), XIV World Congress of Comparative Education Societies (p. 356). Istanbul: Bogazici University.
- Aşıcı, F., & Dede, Y. (2022). Types of problems used according to learning domains: A comparative analysis on PISA and national exams. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 712–734. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1001840
- Aydın, A., Sarıer, Y., & Uysal, Ş. (2014). Evaluation of students’ academic achievement in terms of PISA results. Elementary Education Online, 13(3), 1065–1074.