Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 5 no. 5 (2022)

Scrutinizing Literature on the Globalization of the Science Curriculum in the Context of Education: A Review Paper

Christine Tiempo | Paz Ytac | Jeffry Saro

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

In a competitive, interdependent world where economic production and educational achievement are intertwined, there has been a constant shift toward standards-based scientific education. Numerous countries are making new or recurrent efforts to raise the bar for student learning achievements in order to compete in the global market. This review paper aimed to scrutinize the literature on the globalization of the science curriculum in the context of education. With the main goals, to determine and investigate the causes of globalization in science curricula in the context of education; to look into the research supporting the evolution of science education globally; and to evaluate the methodologies and techniques applied in earlier research studies. Studies examined the data proving diverse local, national, and international influences on science curricula. Although policymakers are under pressure to globalize their intended curricula, these studies demonstrate that there are local cultural restrictions at work at the implementation and realization levels that may offer some resistance to this globalizing effect.



References:

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Pocket guide to the 2011 annual meeting. Washington, DC: Author.
  2. Achieve. (2010). Taking the lead in science education: Forging next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved f r o m http://achieve.org/files/InternationalScienceBenchmarkingReport.pdf.
  3. Anwar, A., Sisay, A. and Tamirat, Z. (2016). Teachers Professional Commitment towards Students Learning, their Profession and the Community in Eastern Ethiopian Secondary Schools. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 5(3), 289-314.
  4. Astiz, M., Wisemand, A., & Baker, D. (2002). Slouching towards decentralization: Consequences of globalization for curricular control in national education systems. Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 66–88.
  5. Aubusson, P. (2011). An Australian science curriculum: Competition, advances and retreats. Australian Journal of Education, 55(3), 229–244.
  6. Cogan, S., Wang, H., & Schmidt, W. (2001). Culturally specific patterns in the conceptualization of the school science curriculum: Insights from TIMSS. Studies in Science Education, 36, 105–133.
  7. Cornali, F., & Tirocchi, S. (2012). Globalization, education, information and communication technologies: What relationships and reciprocal influences? Procedia—Social and Behavioral S c i e n c e s , 47 , 2 0 6 0 – 2 0 6 9 . R e t r i e v e d f r o m http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812026857.
  8. Common Core. (2010). Common core state standards initiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
  9. Dolin, J. (2007). Science education standards and science assessment in Denmark. In D. Waddington, P. Nentwig, & S. Schanze (Eds.), Making it comparable: Standards in science education (pp. 71–82). Mu¨nster, Germany: Waxmann.
  10. Farzaneh, N. and Nejadansari, D. (2014). Students’ Attitude towards Using Cooperative Learning for Teaching Reading Comprehension. Journal of Theory and practice in language studies, 4(2,):2 87-292.
  11. Kjaernsli, M., & Lie, S. (2008). Country profiles of scientific competencies in TIMSS 2003. Education Research and Evaluation, 14, 73–85.
  12. Klieger, A. (2015). Between two science curricula: The influence of international surveys on the Israeli science curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 26(3), 404–424.
  13. Muhammed,  K. (2012). Cooperative Learning Practices in College of Education and Behavioral Sciences in Haramaya University, Ethiopia. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 3(11).
  14. Mohammad, N.B., 2016. The perception of parents and students on the implementation of the K-12 Basic Education Program in the Philippines. International Conference on Education (IECO) Proceeding, 2016, ISBN: 978-602-6988-21-8. Vol. 1, July 2016, 481-503.
  15. OECD. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/1913021.pdf.
  16. Philippine Education System in 2018: Are We Moving Forward? | B u s i n e s s M i r r o r N . d . https://businessmirror.com.ph/philippine-education-system-in-2018-are-we-moving-forward accessed December 24, 2018.
  17. Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C.,
  18. Kawanaka, T., Rasmussen, D., Trubacova, S., Okamoto, Y., Gonzales, P., Stigler, J., & Gallimore, R. (2006). Highlights from the TIMSS 1999 video study of eighth-grade science teaching (NCES 2006-17). US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006017.pdf.
  19. Robitaille, R., Beaton, A., & Plomp, T. (Eds.). (2000). The impact of TIMSS on the teaching and learning of mathematics and science. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press. Rutkowski, L., &
  20. Rutkowski, D. (2009). Trends in TIMSS responses over time: Evidence of global forces in education? Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(2), 137–152.
  21. Seller, S., & Lingard, B. (2014). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 40 doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3120.Retrievedfromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/259535939_The_OECD_and_the_expansion_of_PISA_New_global_modes_of_governance_in_education.
  22. Spring, J. (2008). Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational Research, 78 (2), 330–363.
  23. Sadler, T., & Zeidler, D. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse; Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921.
  24. Schecker, H., & Parchmann, I. (2007). Standards and competence models: The German situation. In D. Waddington, P. Nentwig, & S. Schanze (Eds.). Making it comparable: Standards in science education (pp. 147–164). Mu¨nster, Germany: Waxmann.
  25. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  26. Scottish Executive. (2006). A curriculum for excellence: Progress and proposals. A paper from the curriculum review board. E d i n b u r g h , U K : A u t h o r . R e t r i e v e d f r o m http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/98764/0023924.pdf.
  27. Tao, Y., Oliver, M., & Venville, G. (2013). A comparison of approaches to the teaching and learning of science in Chinese and
  28. Australian elementary classrooms: Cultural and socioeconomic complexities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 33– 61.
  29. Weber, A. S. (2011). The role of education in knowledge economies in developing countries. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2589 – 2594. R e t r i e v e d from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042811006975.
  30. Woldemariam, N. and Girmay, T. (2015). The Practices of Student Network as Cooperative Learning in Ethiopia. African Education Review, 12(4):696-712. Zakaria, E., Titi, S., Yusoff, D.,
  31. Zulkarnain (2014). Effect of Cooperative Learning on Secondary School Students‟ Mathematics Achievement Creative Educ. 4(2):98-100.
  32. Zakaria, E., Chin, C.L. and Daud, Y. (2010). The effect of cooperative learning on student mathematics achievements and attitude towards mathematics, Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2): 272- 275. Available on http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2010.272.27.
  33. Zanini, N., & Benton, T. (2015). The roles of teaching styles and curriculum in mathematics achievement: Analysis of TIMSS 2011. Research Matters, 20, 35–44.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic