Abstract
AbstractDespite cultural differences, the Philippines–Japan partnership is developing an intentional teaching curriculum with parallel standards. However, disparities among their respective educational systems have prompted inequalities. As education plays a critical role in collaboration, we explored the Epistemic Goals (EGs) and Epistemic Practices (EPs) in the biology curriculum, with the research question: How do the epistemic goals and practices of the biology curriculum transmit knowledge and skills in the Philippines and Japan? Using an ethnographic design, we conducted two iterative explorations of EGs and EPs. First, we examined the curriculum policy to determine its EGs. Using the A-B-C-D protocol, we employed discourse analysis to evaluate knowledge and skills in the biology grade-level standards. Second, we examined the articulation of goals in classroom teaching practices. We conducted classroom immersion and observed classes to determine EPs and supported our observations through interviews, synthesizing the data using inductive content analysis. Our findings revealed that the Philippines’ EGs were to transmit factual knowledge enhanced by basic science skills, and their EPs were audio-visual materials, gamified instructions, guided inquiry, posing questions, and learning-by-doing. In comparison, Japan’s EGs were to provide a solid foundation of theoretical and metacognitive knowledge, integrated science skills, and positive attitudes. Its EPs involved cultivating lasting learning, observation, investigation, experimentation, collaborative discussion, and reflective thinking. Our study makes a meaningful contribution by shedding light on crucial ideologies and cultural identities embedded in Biology curricula and teaching traditions.
Funder
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Hiroshima University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference82 articles.
1. Abdulrahaman, M. D., Faruk, N., Oloyede, A. A., Surajudeen-Bakinde, N. T., Olawoyin, L. A., Mejabi, O. V., Imam Fulani, Y. O., Fahm, A. O., & Azeez, A. L. (2020). Multimedia tools in the teaching andlearningprocesses: A systematic review. Heliyon, 6(11), e05312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05312
2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
3. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactment in secondary schools. Routledge.
4. Barlow, A., Brown, S., Lutz, B., et al. (2020). Development of the Student Course Cognitive Engagement Instrument (SCCEI) for college engineering courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00220-9
5. Beeth, M. E., & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher’s practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education, 83, 738–760.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献