Lee, Yew-Jin

Educators have long questioned why some students can experience achievement more easily in some school subjects/curriculum, but not in others. We argue that learners cannot ignore navigating two key features inherent within every curriculum––its cognitive demands as well as its opportunities for access to knowledge that are the twin foci of this study. We adopt Specialisation codes from Legitimation Code Theory to examine the epistemic and social relations of intended learning outcomes from secondary science- and arts-based curricula in mainland China. The results showed that science curricula coded predominately with knowledge codes, but the latter possessed mainly elite codes. Compared to science, the Chinese arts curriculum is therefore more challenging for learners because achievement here is largely dependent on possession of specific attributes, dispositions, or qualities that can potentially restrict access. Implications for improving teaching and learning in these two types of curriculum in this region are discussed.

While there has been a remarkable worldwide convergence in the emphases of primary science curricula over the last four decades, the cognitive and knowledge demands that they make on learners have not been well-researched. Without knowing what these intellectual or epistemic requirements are when learning science in school, issues concerning curricular alignment and access to abstract disciplinary knowledge are also likely to occur. To highlight the value of such forms of analyses, we examine the intended primary science curricula from Korea and Singapore using revised Bloom's taxonomy, as well as describe some of their general features for teaching. The results contribute insights into the complexities of the science curriculum among two similar yet different educational systems that have performed well in international science achievement tests at primary levels.

The intended curriculum is arguably one of the most important components within any national educational system although those in primary science have not been subject to extensive research scrutiny. Based on reformed primary science curricula from Hong Kong, mainland China, and Taiwan, we compared them on two key features: (1) levels of knowledge and cognitive processes from their learning outcomes, and (2) coherency of topics that influence the ease, meaningfulness, and quality of learning in the subject. In the former, we coded their intellectual demands (i.e., what learners must know and do) using revised Bloom’s taxonomy while for the latter, we investigated the coverage, focus, sequence, and emphasis of topics across grades. We found that curricula from Hong Kong and mainland China generally focused on the first two levels of knowledge domains and cognitive processes while Taiwanese learning outcomes were predominantly coded as Apply. Different aspects of coherency in the intended curriculum revealed which topics were covered, their focus, and sequencing across grade divisions as well as their emphasis of topics. Our empirical research therefore adds to the small number of comparative studies in primary science curricula. It can also practically assist policy- and curriculum-making in these regions as they seek to understand and develop quality curricula in primary science.