This study presents a comparative analysis of the Turkish and Australian Foundation to Grade 10 computer science curricula, examining their structure, content, pedagogical approaches, assessment methods, and alignment with the general capabilities of critical and creative thinking, and intercultural understanding. While both countries recognise the importance of digital skills and programming education, their approaches to curriculum design and policy implementation exhibit notable differences.

In Turkey, the computer science curriculum is available from Grade 1 to Grade 9. The course is titled "Information Technologies and Software" for Grades up to 8, and "Computer Science" for Grade 9. The course is compulsory solely for Grades 5 and 6. At all other levels, computer science is available as an elective course. Conversely, Australia’s computer science curriculum is integrated into the Digital Technologies subject of the Australian Curriculum. Digital Technologies is required to be taught by all government schools from the Foundation to Grade 10. The Australian Curriculum adopts a structured, skills-based progression, beginning with early exposure to computational thinking in primary school and advancing to data science, software development, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence (AI), and ethical considerations in secondary education.

This study sought to contribute to the global discussion on the computer science curriculum development, by highlighting best practices and areas for improvement. The recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023 data indicates that Turkey and Australia are among the nations where students’ average performance in Science and Mathematics has improved (TIMMS, 2024). Science and Mathematics competencies converge with the attributes of Computer Science education (Yadav & Berthelsen, 2021). In this context, data comparing the computer science education curriculum of two countries may yield substantial insights into the efficacy of international computer science education procedures. Moreover, the incorporation of computational thinking skills in recent years has transformed computer science education worldwide. In this domain, data, problem-solving, and algorithms are deemed essential, emphasizing a holistic perspective on the facets of computational thinking, which has been redefined (Palop et al., 2025). In this context, comparative analyses of computer science education curricula in Turkey and Australia are anticipated to yield new insights into the education of computational, creative, and critical thinking skills, thereby offering fresh perspectives for research on embedded thinking skills education within the field of computer science.

This research employs a qualitative comparative analysis methodology, involving curriculum document analysis and policy document analysis across Turkey and Australia. Document analysis necessitates the scrutiny and interpretation of data to extract meaning, cultivate a comprehension of the pertinent subject, and produce empirical knowledge (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Research that can be effectively conducted solely through document analysis encompasses cross-cultural studies (Bowen, 2009). Document analysis facilitates the classification of research material by systematically structuring it into primary themes, categories, and case examples, particularly via content analysis (Labuschagne, 2003). The computer science course curriculum of Turkey and Australia were independently analyzed and assessed by researchers, followed by discussion and interpretation. The analysed documents were meticulously compared and interpreted by subject matter specialists. The study evaluates curricula using a computer science education framework that includes curriculum accessibility, practical application, computational thinking, coding skills, ethical and cultural perspectives, and alignment with global trends. The key international benchmark, UNESCO’s artificial intelligence and digital competencies framework (Miao & Cukurova, 2024) serves as a reference point for comparison between Turkey and Australia.

The comparative study contributes to the discussions on computer science curriculum development by highlighting best practices and areas for improvement in both educational jurisdictions. Based on the research findings, the following recommendations can be made: • Computer science, like all other educational fields, is an area that requires teachers to possess pedagogical competencies as well as technical knowledge and skills. In this context, increasing the implementation efficiency of the curricula of the two countries will be possible by encouraging mutual sharing of pedagogical knowledge and experiences among teachers. • The curriculum contents in Turkey and Australia contain complementary and supportive features. It is believed that more efficient computer science education curricula can be developed through collaboration between field experts from both countries. • In supporting students' thinking skills, computer-based and non-computer-based activities are of great importance. Collaborations between the two countries aimed at preparing efficient activities can lead to the emergence of very rich, entertaining, and educational activities that also provide enhancements for how intercultural understanding can be better embedded in the curriculum. • The evaluation approaches in curricula are important indicators of achieving program objectives. In this context, analyzing the different assessment approaches in two countries can reveal new and multifaceted assessment methods in computer science education. • Computer science has a high potential for collaboration within itself. In this context, it is suggested that similar international collaborations be established to enhance the computer science education processes in each country. The findings will be valuable for education researchers, policymakers, curriculum developers, and educators aiming to enhance the role of computer science across both primary and secondary education year levels.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.). Intercultural understanding (Version 8.4). Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/intercultural-understanding/ Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Rese- arch Journal, 9(2), 27-40. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative research: Airy fairy or fundamental? The Qualitative Re- port, 8(1). Miao, F., & Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/ZJTE2084 Palop, B., Díaz, I., Rodríguez-Muñiz, L.J. et al. Redefining computational thinking: A holistic framework and its implications for K-12 education. Educ Inf Technol (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13297-4 Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2015). Digital equity and intercultural education. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 743-756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9419-z TIMSS 2023. (2024, December 4). The Launch of the TIMSS 2023 International Report and Results. Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl/news-events/events/launch-timss-2023-international-report Yadav, A., & Berthelsen, U. (Eds.). (2021). Computational thinking in education: a pedagogical perspective. Routledge.