This study aimed to investigate the science curricula of Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand. This study was undertaken to compare science curricula and determine which scientists’ current practices, such as hypothesizing, are represented in science curricula. A cross-case analysis was carried out using the junior science curriculum (ages 12–14) of these countries. The analysis revealed similarities in the science curriculum, including that the purpose of the science curriculum is to develop scientific literacy. The junior secondary science curriculum content tends to consist of biology, physics, chemistry, and earth and space sciences. Students are prescribed no more than 10 hours/week, and each science curriculum displays processes commonly associated with scientific experimentation and, to a lesser degree, modeling. Student-centered learning and inquiry are promoted as the main approaches in the science curriculum, and learning outcomes are assessed by teachers using exam-based and non-exam methods both as a formative and summative assessment. The analysis uncovered key differences. One example of key differences is the purposes of the science curriculum. Indonesia includes spiritual attitude and making decisions in daily life. Vietnam includes awareness of natural science. Thailand includes nationalism, life skills, and creativity. Integrated science is included only in Indonesia’s curriculum. It was found that Indonesian students have more time to learn science than other countries, followed by Vietnamese and Thai students. Vietnam’s curriculum clearly includes practices involving judgment about data, revision of ideas, and constructing explanations. Indonesia promotes a scientific approach. Vietnam promotes the scientific method, whereas Thailand promotes the scientific method and scientific inquiry as to their main pedagogical approaches. Finally, Indonesia and Thailand have large-scale assessments at the national level for graduation requirements on science subjects. However, there is no apparent national science examination in Vietnam at the junior level. These ostensible alignments suggest that science curriculum development is increasingly global and that there is evidence of unified representations of practices associated with science. The study will be of significance to science educators, government ministries, and international bodies of education who seek to develop science curricula.
Keywords: science curriculum, comparative research, practice, Indonesia, Vietnam, ThailandBerland, 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
Bertram, C. (2019). What is powerful knowledge in school history? Learning from the South African and Rwandan school curriculum documents. The Curriculum Journal, 30(2), 125-–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1557536
Cetina, K. K., Schatzki, T. R., & Von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2005). The practice turned into contemporary theory. Routledge.
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00081
Chu, M. (2012). Exploring science curriculum emphases in relation to the Alberta Physics Program of Study. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 82-–105.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
Duschl, R. A., & Bismarck, A. S. (Eds.). (2016). Reconceptualizing STEM Education: The Central Role of Practices. Routledge.
Dillon, J. (2009). On scientific literacy and curriculum reform. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 201-–213.
Egan, K. (1978). What is the curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 65-–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1978.11075558
Erduran, S. (2014). Beyond the nature of science: The case for reconceptualising "Science" for science education. Science Education International, 25(1), 93-111.
Faikhamta, C., & Ladachart, L. (2016). Science education in Thailand: Moving through crisis to opportunity. In C. Mei-Hung (Ed.). .), Science Education Research and Practice in Asia (pp. xx–xx). The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0847-4_11
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press. London
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Chapter 1: Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of rResearch in eEducation, 30(1), 1-–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001001
George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences (Belfer Center Studies in International Security), (4 Fourth Printing Editioned.). The MIT Press, London.
Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. M. (2005). Curriculum leadership: Development and implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Harty, S. (1993). Project 2061: Systemic reform of K-12 education for science literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(3), 505–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00694433
Hasani, A., Juansah, D. E., Sari, I. J., & El Islami, R. A. Z. (2021). Conceptual Frameworks on how to teach STEM concepts in Bahasa Indonesia subject as integrated learning in Grades 1–3 Elementary School in the Curriculum 2013 to contribute to sustainability education. Sustainability, 13(1), Article 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010173
Ibrohim, I., Sutopo, S., Muntholib, M., Prihatna Wati, Y., & Mufidah, I. (2019). Implementation of inquiry-based learning (IBL) to improve students` understanding of the nature of science (NOS). The 3rd International Conference on Mathematics and Sciences Education (ICoMSE), 1-–8. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000632
In’am, A., & Hajar, S. (2017). Learning geometry through discovery learning using a scientific approach. International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 55-–70. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1014a
Indonesian Department of Education. (2006). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan [English translation here]. Jakarta: Department of Education: Jakarta.
Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture. (2017). Silabus Mata Pelajaran Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) Mata Pelajaran IPA [English translation here]. Jakarta: Ministry of Education and Culture: Jakarta.
IPST. (2008). Science instruction: Basic education curriculum. Accessed Retrieved January 12, 2014, from: http://www.ipst.ac.th/sci_curriculum.
International Monetary Fund. (2019). GDP Indicators 2019. Accessed Retrieved 8 January 8, 2021, from: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2018/October.
El Islami, R. A. Z., and & Nuangchalerm, P. (2020). Comparative study of scientific literacy: Indonesian and Thai pre-service science teachers report. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 9(2), 261-–268. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i2.20355
El Islami, R. A. Z., Nuangchalerm, P., and & Sjaifuddin, S. (2018). Science process of environmental conservation: a cross national study of Thai and Indonesian pre-service science teachers. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientist. , 6(4), 72-–80. http://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2018.84
Iyer, P., & Moore, R. (2017). Measuring learning quality in Ethiopia, India and Vietnam: fFrom primary to secondary school effectiveness, . Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(6), 908-–924. http://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1322492.
Kenny, R., & Grotelueschen, A. (1984). Making the Case for Case Study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(1), 37-–51. http://doi.org/10.1080/10999183.2010.10767407
Khan, S., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Article title here. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. , 9(1), 1-–21.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311-–328. http://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.2.311
Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?. Cognitive dDevelopment, 23(4), 435-–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006
Lawna, M., Deary, I.J., Bartholomewc, D.J., & Brettd. C. (2010). Embedding the new science of research: The organized culture of Scottish educational research in the mid-twentieth century. Paedagogica Historica, 46 (3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230903396480
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students` construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
Michie, M. (2017). Comparing the Indonesian Kkurikulum 2013 with the Australian Curriculum: Focusing on science for junior secondary schools. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives. , 16 (2), 83-–96.
Mnguni, L., El Islami, R. A. Z., Hebe, H., Sari, I. J., & Nestiadi, A. (2020). A comparison of the South African and Indonesian teachers` preferred curriculum ideology for school science. Curriculum Perspectives, 40(1), 3-–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00089-x
Nang, H., & A. Harfield, A. (2018). A framework for evaluating tablet-based educational applications for primary school levels in Thailand. iJIMInternational Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 12(5), 126-–139. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i5.9009.
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2013). APPENDIX F – Science and Engineering Practices in the NGSS. NGSS Release, 1-33Author.
Noddings, N. (2007). Aims, Goals, and Objectives. Encounters in Education, 8, 7-–15.
Nuangchalerm, P., and & El Islami, R. A. Z. (2018a). Context of science on environmental conservation: Comparative study between Thai and Indonesian novice science teachers students. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA,. 4(1), 60-–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v4i1.3349
Nuangchalerm, P., and & El Islami, R. A. Z. (2018b). Comparative study between Indonesian and Thai novice science teacher students in the content of science. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(4), 23-–29. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2018.75
Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOECD. (n.d.). Education 2030 Curriculum content mapping: An analysis of the Netherlands curriculum proposal. Retrieved February 27, 2021, from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/curriculum-analysis/#
Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOECD. (2001). Knowledge and Skills for life first result from PISA 2000. Paris-France: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world first result from PISA 2003. Paris-France: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2007). Executive summary PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris-France: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do – Student performance in reading, mathematics, and science (Volume I). Paris-France: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What Students Know and can do - Student performance in reading, mathematics, and science (Volume I). Paris-France: OECD Publishing.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). PISA 2015 results in focus. Paris-France: OECD Publishing.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 Results: Combined Executive Summaries Volume I, II, & III. Paris-France: OECD Publishing.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOECD. (2019b). OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework: . OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2020). International Curriculum Redesign. Available December 16, 2020, from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/E2030_CCM_analysis_NLD_curriculum_proposal.pdf
Office of the National Education Commission of Thailand (ONEC). (2003). National Education Act B. E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B. E. 2545 (2002). Bangkok: Pimdeekanpim Co., Ltd.
Office of the National Education Commission. (1999). National education act 1999. Office of National Education Commission.
Opertti, R., Kang, H., & Magni, G. (2018). Comparative analysis of the National Curriculum frameworks of five countries: Brazil, Cambodia, Finland, Kenya and Peru. Geneva: IBE/UNESCO
Phan, H. L. T., Tran, L. T., & Blackmore, J. (20192018). Internationalization, student engagement, and global graduates: A comparative study of Vietnamese and Australian students’ experience. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(1), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318803717
Pinar, W. F. (2013). International handbook of curriculum research. Routledge.
Powell, J. C., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Publisher.
Priestley, M. (2011). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and curriculum change. Pedagogy, cCulture & sSociety, 19(2), 221-–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.582258
Priestley, M., & Philippou, S. (2020). Curriculum in uncertain times. The Curriculum Journal, 31(4), 581-–586. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.73
Priyanto, A., Linuwih, S., Aji, M. P., & Bich, D. D. (2017). Enhancing students’ cognitive skill in Nguyen Tat Thanh hHigh sSchool Hanoi Vietnam through scientific learning material of static electricity. IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012048.
Pugach, M. C., Blanton, L. P., Mickelson, A. M., & Boveda, M. (2020). Curriculum theory: The missing perspective in teacher education for inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419883665
Roberts, D. A. (1998). Analyzing school science courses: The concept of companion meaning. In D. A. Roberts & L. Ostman (Eds.). .), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 54-–70). New York: Teachers College Press.
Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20180
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument‐driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
Sand, O., Davis, D., Lammel, R., & Stone, T. (1960). Chapter III: Components of the curriculum. Review of Educational Research, 30(3), 226–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543030003226
Shen, B. S. (1975). Science literacy: Public understanding of science is becoming vitally needed in developing and industrialized countries alike. American Scientist, 63(3), 265-–268.
Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 141-–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20454
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: tTheory and practice. New York, NY. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Tabun, Y. F., Sunarno, W., & Sukarmin. (2019). Guided inquiry model based on the scientific approach to science learning of the students of SMPK Stella Maris Biudukfoho. IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. erence Series 1307. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1307/1/012004.
Thai Ministry of Education. (2017). Indicators and content areas in science (revised curriculum A.D. 2017) according to Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). Bangkok, Thailand: The Agricultural Co-operative Federation of Thailand Press.
Thao-Do, T. P., & Yuenyong, C. (2017). Dilemmas in examining the understanding of the nature of science in Vietnam. Cultural Studies of Science Educ. ation, 12, 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9689-1
Tornee, N., Bunterm, T., & Tang, K. N. (2017). The impacts of inquiry-based learning models on teaching science: A case study in Thailand. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Special Issue for INTE, 2017, 395-–402.
United Nations Development Programme.UNDP. (2018). Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018 Statistical Update. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). New York.
VanWynsberghe, R., & Khan, S. (2007). Redefining case study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(2), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690700600208
Vibulphol, J., Loima, J., Areesophonpichet, S., & Rukspollmuang, R. (2015). Ready contents or future skills? A comparative study of teacher education in Thailand and Finland. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(4), 149-–159. http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n4p149
Vietnamese MOET. (2018). Natural science curriculum., Ministry of Education and Training: Vietnam..
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. J. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competencies: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
Vulliamy, G., Kimonen, E., Nevalainen, R., & Webb, R. (1997). Teacher identity and curriculum change: A comparative case-study analysis of small schools in England and Finland. Comparative eEducation, 33(1), 97-–116.
Webb, R., & Vulliamy, G. (1999). Managing curriculum policy changes: A comparative analysis of primary schools in England and Finland. Journal of Education Policy, 14(2), 117-–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/026809399286404
Wei, B. (2009). In search of meaningful integration: The experiences of developing integrated science curricula in junior secondary schools in China. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701687430
Zur Bargury, I. Z. (2012). A new curriculum for junior-high in computer science. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education - ITiCSE ’12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325347.