How do Chinese and Egyptian science textbooks differ? A cross-country comparative research.

Ahmed Hosny Saleh Metwally, Ahmed Tlili, Yiping Wang, Zhimin Li, Jialu Zhao, Boulus Shehata, Dong Yang, Ronghuai Huang

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ahmed Hosny Saleh MetwallySmart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.

Ahmed TliliSmart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.

Yiping WangDepartment of Education, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, USA.

Zhimin LiSmart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.

Jialu ZhaoSmart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.

Boulus ShehataSmart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.

Dong YangCollege of Education for the Future, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai, China.

Ronghuai HuangSmart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Textbooks have a crucial role in shaping students' knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes in different school subjects. This study compares the structure and content of science textbooks of grade nine in Egypt and China to reveal the common and different features in the textbook design. It opts for a horizontal analysis of four science textbooks in the associated countries. The results revealed that the distribution of science subjects has partial similarities to some extent among the preparatory stage between the Chinese and Egyptian science textbooks besides the overlapping in the associated topics, presenting Biology as a common subject of interest. Moreover, the number of activities distributed within units and subjects have the highest shares in the Chinese textbooks, and most of the activities in the Egyptian textbooks focused on Chemistry and Physics subjects. In addition to the structure analysis, this study also explored the textbooks content in both countries, covering three dimensions: (1) cognitive expectations, (2) learning goals, and (3) efficiency of illustration. The results provide valuable insights for textbook designers and curriculum developers to enhance the quality of science curricula and textbooks. Therefore, the study recommends considering instructional design and lesson plans when distributing the learning activities and developing international standards for designing school science textbooks.

Indexed as

Cognitive expectationsContent analysisScience textbookStructure analysisTextbooks comparison

Identifiers

PMID39183839

DOI10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32380

PMCPMC11341347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.