Methodology: Design of the study Content analysis (Schreier, 2013) was used to address research questions. IBDP and MoNEP curricula and regulations were analysed. With the guidance and trainings given by researchers, fourteen IBDP and MoNEP teachers from three schools and two cities in Turkey carried out subject specific, detailed analysis of the following curricula: a) Turkish (MoNE, 2011e, 2011b)/Language A: Turkish literature (HL) (IBO, 2011b) b) English (MoNE, 2011c)/Language B: English language (HL) (IBO, 2011a) c) Biology (MoNE, 2011a)/Biology (SL&HL) (IBO, 2007) d) Mathematics (MoNE, 2011d)/Mathematics (SL&HL) (IBO, 2012a, 2012b) Teachers used the written curriculum analysis tool for this purpose. The tool consisted of three sections; philosophical underpinnings, content and cognitive demand. For the philosophical underpinnings, categories adapted from Schiro (2008), that address seven different categories (knowledge, learning, children, teaching, student evaluation, formative curriculum evaluation, summative curriculum evaluation) of the conceptual framework of the Scholar academic (SA), Social efficient (SE), Learner centred (LC) and Social reconstructionist (SR) ideologies. At the second section; content according to topics and sub-topics of the four subject areas were listed for IBDP and MoNEP, taking IBDP as the basis for comparison, besides that the amount of time allocated to each topic and their sub-topics were compared. At the third section cognitive demand was examined by using six faceted view of understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Content validity was checked by a university expert in curriculum studies. In addition, the tool was then piloted for validity (Neuendorf, 2002) with three teachers from two schools. Based on their comments and suggestions revisions were made and the tool was finalized. A training and trial session was then held with the teachers involved, to train them in the use of the tool. Experts in each subject area checked the analyses of the teachers. Descriptive statistics of the data produced by the teachers were analysed using Microsoft Excel program. For the second research question, general IB and MoNE documents and regulations were studied. The categories given were those in the research question: international-mindedness, civic-mindedness, engagement, and motivation.

Outcomes / Results: Our results show that the distribution of the four ideologies is more balanced in IBDP than in MONEP. The predominant ideologies in IBDP are the learner-centred LC (31.5%) and skills-based SE (27.3%), whereas in MoNEP they are teacher-centred SA (40%) and again skills-based SE (35.8%). Not much room is therefore left for the other ideologies in MoNEP, only 10.3% for LC and 14.6% for SR. In IBDP, however SA is 18.6% and SR is 22.8% giving a more balanced philosophical approach. Content IBDP is a two-year program for the last two years of high school, whereas MoNEP is a full four-year high school curriculum. In the IBDP subject areas that were examined, there are fewer topics treated in more depth, giving more time to individual units. Thus, IBDP enables students to master the skills which was seen to help during their university education. Cognitive demand The cognitive demand of the IBDP is higher than that of MoNEP in all four subjects studied. Especially in mother tongue, Turkish, the difference is substantial: 17.75. To understand why it may be helpful to remember that the approaches used were very different: IBDP had a skills-based approach, while MoNEP used a chronological one.. Non-scholastic attributes in IBDP and Turkish general curriculum documentation Comparing the intended non-scholastic attributes of international-mindedness, civic-mindedness, engagement and motivation between IBDP and MoNEP shows considerable overlap as well as some differences. Both IBDP and MoNEP act as educational leaders with an idealistic mission, IB as a global leader to create a better world, MoNEP as a national one, to create a better country through education.