Comparing science curricula in Myanmar and Japan: Objectives and content covered in lower secondary textbooks

Wai Wai Kyi; Tetsuo Isozaki

doi:10.29333/ejmste/13305

Full Text (PDF)

Wai Wai Kyi ¹ ^* , Tetsuo Isozaki ¹

More Detail

¹ Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, JAPAN^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

An analysis of textbooks can lead to a comparison of the curricula in two nations and how curriculum standards determine the textbook content in a developed and developing country. Deductive content analysis was employed to analyze and compare objectives mandated in science curricula in Myanmar and Japan, and the articulation of science textbooks’ content on science curricula’s objectives including approaches to learning and learning of content taught at grade-6 in Myanmar and grade-7 in Japan. The results show that both countries’ curriculum objectives are clearly mandated to cultivate students’ scientific knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The exchanges of knowledge between the two contexts are the analyzed Japanese science textbook’s employment of a step-by-step and detailed scientific inquiry-based approach for the students to learn light and sound concept, and Myanmar’s science textbook’s description of some technical scientific terms in both mother tongue (Burmese) and English.

Keywords

content
objectives
science curricula
lower secondary textbooks

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2023, Volume 19, Issue 7, Article No: em2294

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13305

Publication date: 01 Jul 2023

Online publication date: 25 May 2023

Article Views: 828

Article Downloads: 1030

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
ACER. (2006). Highlights from the TIMSS 1999 video study of eighth grade science teaching. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/timss_video/1/
Aung, S. M., & Khaing, K. M. (2018). A study of the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on students’ achievement in middle school science. Journal of Myanmar Academy of Arts Science, 16(9A), 149-174.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Free Press.
Cai, J. (2014). Searching for evidence of curricular effect on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Some insights from the LieCal project. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 811-831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-014-0122-y
Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847-1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601159407
Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.
Cuban, L. (1993). The lure of curricular reform and its pitiful history. The Phi Delta Kappa, 75(2), 182-185.
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
Gericke, N., Hagberg, M., & Jorde, D. (2013). Upper secondary students’ understanding of the use of multiple models in biology textbooks–The importance of conceptual variation and incommensurability. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 755-780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9288-z
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education. 22(1), 85-142, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560022
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
Holdford, D. (2008). Content analysis methods for conducting research in social and administrative pharmacy. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4(2), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2007.03.003
Howson, G. (2013). The development of mathematics textbooks: Historical reflections from a personal perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(5), 647-658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0511-9
Hu, W., Mui, W. S. W., & Huang, H. (2016). A comparison of elementary school science textbooks in East Asia. In H. S. Lin, J. K., Gilbert, & C. J. Lian (Eds.), Science education research and practice in East Asia: Trends and perspectives (pp. 217-242). Higher Education Press.
Isozaki, T. (2014). The organisation and the recontextualization of Rika (school science) education in the second half of the nineteenth century in Japan. Science and Education, 23(5), 1153-1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9615-4
Isozaki, T. (2017). Laboratory work as a teaching method: A historical case study of the institutionalization of laboratory science in Japan. Espacio, Tiempo y Educación, 4(2), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.14516/ete.177
Isozaki, T., & Pan, S. (2016). Why we study the history of science education in East Asia: A comparison of the emergence of science education in China and Japan. In Science education research and practice in East Asia: Trends and perspectives. East Asian Association for Science Education.
Kawasaki, K. (1996). The concepts of science in Japanese and Western education. Science & Education, 5(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00426437
Khanthavy, H., Tamura, K., Terashima, Y., & Kozai, T. (2014). Comparative study of elementary science curriculum and textbook production of Laos and Japan. NUE Journal of International Educational Cooperation, 8, 47-82.
Komatsu, S. (2002). Transition in the Japanese curriculum: How is the curriculum of elementary and secondary schools in Japan determined? International Educational Journal, 3(5), 50-55.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
Kyaw, W. T., & Khaing, K. M. (2018). Investigation into the effectiveness of active learning instructional strategies on the academic achievement of science students at the middle school level. Journal of Myanmar Academy of Arts Science, 16(9A), 175-231.
La Marca, P. M., Redfield, D., & Winter, P. C. (2000). State standards and state assessment systems: A guide to alignment. Greenwood Press.
Lwin, T. (2019). Global justice, national education and local realities in Myanmar: A civil society perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(2), 273-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09595-z
MacDonald. M. (2015). Early childhood education and sustainability: A living curriculum. Childhood Education, 91(5), 332-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2015.1090845
McDonald, C. V., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2017). Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks. In C. V. McDonald, & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.) Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks. A global perspective. (pp. 1-19). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650524-1
MEXT. (2017a). Course of study for lower secondary school science: The curriculum guidance. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20201203-mxt_kyoiku01-100002608_5.pdf
MEXT. (2017b). 2017 revised course of study for lower secondary school English translation (provisional translation): Science. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20220405-mxt_kyoiku02-000005242_003.pdf
MEXT. (n. d.). Until textbooks are used. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology. https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/kyoukasho/gaiyou/04060901/1235087.htm
MOE. (2019). Grade-7 science textbook. Excellent Printers Group Publishing.
Nirode, W., & Boyd, B. (2021). High school geometry textbooks’ proving opportunities of common core theorems. School Science and Mathematics, 121(6), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12487
Ogawa, M. (2015). Rika. In R. F. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 840). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_419
Osborne, J., Sedlacek, Q. C., Lemmi, C., & Friend, M. (2016). Learning to read science. Science Scope, 40(3), 36-42. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/ss16_040_03_36
Pawilen, G. T., & Sumida. M. (2005). A comparative study of elementary science curriculum of Philippines and Japan. Ehimedaigaku Kyōiku Gakubu Kiyō [Bulletin of Ehime University Faculty of Education], 52(1), 167-180.
Phouttha, K. (2005). A comparison study of education systems between the Laos and Japan for the improvement of future education. Research Bulletin of Humanities and Social Sciences, 20, 9-22.
Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the common core standards in mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185-1211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435
Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007003
Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539
Roth, K. J., & Garnier, H. (2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Science Leadership, 64(4), 16-23.
Sato, H. (2019). National curriculum reforms in Japan from 1998 to 2018: A CDA on the possibility of sustainable development. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 1, 1-9.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. A., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: Across-national comparison of curriculum and learning. Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027042000294682
Shimoda, K., Morimoto, S., Azuma, T., Ishikawa, K., Isozaki, T., Ito, H., Inagaki, S., Iwaki, K., Okiharu, F., Kajiwara, H., Kamata, M., Kiryu, T., Kubota, Y., Kurita, K., Kurihara, J., Komori, E., Sato, T., Sugawara, T., Takahashi, S., … Yamada, T. (2021). Chuugakkou kagaku 1 [Lower secondary school science Grade-1]. Gakkotosho.
Silver, E. A. (2009). Cross-national comparisons of mathematics curriculum materials: What might we learn?. ZDM, 41(6), 827-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0209-1
Sun, L., & Li, L. (2021). The alignment between third-grade primary school science textbooks and curriculum standards in China and Japan. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(3), 507-518. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.507
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0844-0_8
Wiecozrek, C. C. (2008). Comparative analysis of educational systems of American and Japanese schools: Views and visions. American and Japanese Education, 86(2), 99-111.
Yamanaka. S., & Suzuki. K. H. (2020). Japanese education reform towards twenty-first century education. In F. Reimers (Eds.), Audacious education purposes (pp. 81-103). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3_4
You, J., Lee, H., & Craig, C. J. (2019). Remaking textbook policy: Analysis of national curriculum alignment in Korean school textbooks. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(1), 14-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1572591
Yu, J., Li, C., & Li, G. (2022). Alignment between biology curriculum standards and five textbook editions: a content analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 44(14), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2119621

How to cite this article

APA

Kyi, W. W., & Isozaki, T. (2023). Comparing science curricula in Myanmar and Japan: Objectives and content covered in lower secondary textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(7), em2294. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13305

Vancouver

Kyi WW, Isozaki T. Comparing science curricula in Myanmar and Japan: Objectives and content covered in lower secondary textbooks. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(7):em2294. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13305

AMA

Kyi WW, Isozaki T. Comparing science curricula in Myanmar and Japan: Objectives and content covered in lower secondary textbooks. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(7), em2294. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13305

Chicago

Kyi, Wai Wai, and Tetsuo Isozaki. "Comparing science curricula in Myanmar and Japan: Objectives and content covered in lower secondary textbooks". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2023 19 no. 7 (2023): em2294. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13305

Harvard

Kyi, W. W., and Isozaki, T. (2023). Comparing science curricula in Myanmar and Japan: Objectives and content covered in lower secondary textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(7), em2294. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13305

MLA

Kyi, Wai Wai et al. "Comparing science curricula in Myanmar and Japan: Objectives and content covered in lower secondary textbooks". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 19, no. 7, 2023, em2294. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13305