The scientist’s ways in national science curricula: A comparative study between Taiwan and Vietnam
More details
Hide details
Program of Liberal Arts Education, Ho Chi Minh City University of Management and Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, VIETNAM
Department of Science Education, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei City, TAIWAN
Science Education Center, Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City, TAIWAN
Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City, TAIWAN
Department of Biology, Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, INDONESIA
Online publication date: 2023-10-02
Publication date: 2023-11-01
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2023;19(11):em2355
Recent science education reforms center at having students learn the practices of scientists. In this study, we aim at exploring how science curricular documents reflect the latest updates from the “practice turn” reform. To do that, we utilize the notion of the scientist’s ways of doing science as a perspective to observe the distribution of components constituting scientific practices in national science curricula. Current literature provides several curriculum analysis frameworks based on taxonomies of cognitive demands or international tests. Still, those frameworks are either not intended for science curricula or limited in indicators and hence failed to capture an updating picture of science curricula that reflect the recent practice turn. We employ multiple case study research design and qualitative content analysis approach to compare learning outcomes in Taiwan and Vietnam’s two national science curricula. Results from this study offer maps of scientific practices across curricular documents and relevant suggestions for stakeholders to improve science curricula. The study opens a new direction on researching science curricula to make science learning approaching the scientist’s ways in reality.
AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H.-l. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.
Adamson, B., & Morris, P. (2014). Comparing curricula. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research (pp. 309-332). Springer.
Adelman, C. (2015). To imagine a verb: The language and syntax of learning outcomes statements. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193.
Alonzo, A. (2013). What can be learned from current large-scale assessment programs to inform assessment of the next generation science standards? In Proceedings of the Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Becker, N. M., Rupp, C. A., & Brandriet, A. (2017). Engaging students in analyzing and interpreting data to construct mathematical models: An analysis of students’ reasoning in a method of initial rates task. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 798-810.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
Bell, P., Bricker, L., Tzou, C., Lee, T., & Van Horne, K. (2012). Exploring the science framework: Engaging learners in scientific practices related to obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Science Scope, 36(3), 17.
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112.
Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. (1998). Text analysis. In H. R. Bernard, & C. C. Gravlee (Eds.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models in science and mental models in scientists and nonscientists. Mind & Society, 2(2), 33-48.
Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. Science and Children, 49(4), 10.
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320.
Chabalengula, V. M., & Mumba, F. (2017). Engineering design skills coverage in K-12 engineering program curriculum materials in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 39(16), 2209-2225.
Chen, H.-L. S., & Huang, H.-Y. (2017). Advancing 21st century competencies in Taiwan.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
Chiu, M.-H. (2007). Standards for science education in Taiwan. In S. Schanze (Ed.), Making it comparable: Standards in science education (pp. 303-346). Waxmann Verlag.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2017). High school students’ engagement in planning investigations: Findings from a longitudinal study in Spain. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 99-112.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. Teachers College Press.
DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 567-591.
Duschl, R. A. (2019). Learning progressions: Framing and designing coherent sequences for STEM education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1, 4.
Duschl, R. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Planning and carrying out investigations: An entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS science and engineering practices. International Journal of STEM Education, 1, 12.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2012). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109-2139.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education. In S. Erduran, & Z. R. Dagher (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (pp. 1-18). Springer.
Evagorou, M., Erduran, S., & Mäntylä, T. (2015). The role of visual representations in scientific practices: from conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 11.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press.
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048.
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1-32.
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005). Design‐based science and real‐world problem‐solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879.
Fulmer, G., Tanas, J., & Weiss, K. (2018). The challenges of alignment for the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 1076-1100.
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.
Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 3-19). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (2003). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Taylor & Francis.
Hằng, N. V. T., Meijer, M. R., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2015). The implementation of a social constructivist approach in primary science education in Confucian heritage culture: The case of Vietnam. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 665-693.
Jin, H., Wei, X., Duan, P., Guo, Y., & Wang, W. (2016). Promoting cognitive and social aspects of inquiry through classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 319-343.
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Models and modelling in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47-68). Springer.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J., & Chiu, M.-H. (2019). Comparison and analysis of inquiry, practice and modeling in NGSS and year 12 national basic education. Science Education Monthly, 421, 19-31.
Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., & Yoon, H.-G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: An analysis based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2193-2213.
Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., Jin, Q., Yoon, H.-G., & Matsubara, K. (2017). Revised Bloom’s taxonomy–The Swiss army knife in curriculum research. In East-Asian primary science curricula (pp. 11-16). Springer.
Lertdechapat, K., & Faikhamta, C. (2018). Science and engineering practices in a revised Thai science curriculum. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference for Science Educators and Teachers.
Manz, E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2020). Rethinking the classroom science investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1148-1174.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
Meda, L., & Swart, A. J. (2018). Analyzing learning outcomes in an Electrical Engineering curriculum using illustrative verbs derived from Bloom’s taxonomy. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(3), 399-412.
Ministry of Education (New Zealand). (2014). The New Zealand curriculum. MOE.
MOET. (2018). General education curriculum: Natural science. Ministry of Education and Training (Vietnam).
Molina, J., Hai, N. V., Cheng, P. H., & Chang, C. Y. (2021). SDG’s quality education approach: Comparative analysis of natural sciences curriculum guidelines between Taiwan and Colombia. Sustainability, 13(6), 3352.
NAER. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education: Natural sciences. National Academy for Educational Research.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Appendix F–Science and engineering practices in the NGSS. In Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Research Council.
NRC. (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the next generation science standards and common core for ELA standards: A workshop summary. National Academies Press.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406919899220.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I). Excellence and equity in education. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 science framework. In PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.
Ornek, F. (2008). Models in science education: Applications of models in learning and teaching science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(2), 35-45.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196.
Osborne, J. F. (2019). Not “hands on” but “minds on”: A response to Furtak and Penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1280-1283.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Packer, M. (2001). The problem of transfer, and the sociocultural critique of schooling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 493-514.
Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 1-23).
Qablan, A. (2018). Comparison of science and engineering concepts in next generation science standards with Jordan science standards. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2693-2709.
Reiser, B. J., Berland, L. K., & Kenyon, L. (2012). Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. The Science Teacher, 79(4), 34.
Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 197-223.
Rouse, J. (2007). Social practices and normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(1), 46-56.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Schwartz, M. (2006). For whom do we write the curriculum? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 449-457.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
Sothayapetch, P., Lavonen, J., & Juuti, K. (2013). A comparative analysis of PISA scientific literacy framework in Finnish and Thai science curricula. Science Education International, 24(1), 78-97.
Stemler, S. (2001). An introduction to content analysis. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Stern, D. G. (2003). The practical turn. In S. P. Turner, & P. A. Roth (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 185-206). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing “science practice” in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033-1040.
Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. (2015). A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 659-685.
Tippett, C. (2009). Argumentation: The language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(1), 17-25.
Tsai, C.-Y. (2015). Improving students’ PISA scientific competencies through online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 321-339.
Waddington, D., Nentwig, P., & Schanze, S. (2007). Making it comparable: Standards in science education. Waxmann Verlag.
Wei, B., & Ou, Y. (2018). A comparative analysis of junior high school science curriculum standards in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao: Based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(8), 1459-1474.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.e....
Wilkerson, M. H., & Fenwick, M. (2017). Using mathematics and computational thinking. In C. Schwarz (Ed.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 181-204). NSTA.
World Meteorological Organization. (2020). United in science 2020: A multi-organization high-level compilation of the latest climate science information.
Yarden, A. (2009). Reading scientific texts: Adapting primary literature for promoting scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 307-311.
Yaz, O. V., & Kurnaz, M. A. (2020). Comparative analysis of the science teaching curricula in Turkey. SAGE Open, 10(1).
Yeh, Y.-F., Erduran, S., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2019). Investigating coherence about nature of science in science curriculum documents. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 291-310.
Zheng, K.-H., & Lee, S.-T. (2018). When science literacy and reading literacy meet: Experimental study of science news reading strategy for high school students. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(4), 157-192.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top