Abstract
The paper reports a study that used a Bernsteinian analysis in order to investigate the association between higher primary science curriculum and social equity in four contrasting socioeconomic contexts: British Columbia (Canada), Singapore, South Africa and Kenya. The official science curriculum of each jurisdiction was analysed in terms of strength of knowledge boundaries, selection and progression of content and the use of vertical and horizontal discourses. All four curricula included life science and physical science topics, with a variable attention given to earth and space science and technology. South Africa and British Columbia had strong boundaries between content domains, while Singapore and Kenya had weak knowledge boundaries. The depth, an indicator of increasing specialization, increased over the higher primary years in each curriculum. British Columbia and Singapore addressed fewer topics in each year of study than Kenya and South Africa. Kenya included many applied science topics, including technology, health education and agriculture. South Africa separated physical science into chemistry and physics and integrated technology and health education into science. The two wealthier countries, British Columbia and Singapore, prioritized vertical discourse, while the two developing countries, South Africa and Kenya, referenced horizontal discourse more frequently. The results only partially support the claims made by Bernstein (Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 20:157–173, 1999) and Young and Muller (2016) for an association between the curriculum and social equity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data is available from the author.
References
Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Towards a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81(2), 217–238.
Bentley, D., & Watts, M. (1994). Primary science and technology: practical alternatives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourses: an essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 157–173.
Bernstein, B. (2001). From pedagogies to knowledges. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 363–368). New York: Peter Lang.
Cross, M., Mungadi, R., & Rouhani, S. (2002). From policy to practice: curriculum reform in South African education. Comparative Education, 38, 171–187.
Curriculum Planning & Development Division. (2007). Science syllabus primary 2008. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Deng, Z. (2012). School subjects and academic disciplines: the differences. In A. Luke, K. Weir, A. Woods, & M. Moroney (Eds.), Curriculum, syllabus design and equity: a primer and model (pp. 40–53). New York: Routledge.
Deng, Z. (2018). Bringing knowledge back in: perspectives from liberal education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48, 335–351.
Deng, Z. (2020). Knowledge, content, curriculum and Didaktik: beyond social realism. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2016). PISA and higher-performing education systems: explaining Singapore’s education success. Comparative Education, 52, 449–472.
Department of Basic Education. (2018). Call for public comments: amendment to curriculum assessment policy statements. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.za/CAPSforComments082018.aspx.
Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy: intermediate phase grades 4–6, natural sciences and technology. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Gauch Jnr, H. G. (2009). Science, worldviews and education. Science and Education, 18(6–7), 667–695.
Harlen, W. (Ed). (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield Association for Science Education.
Harlen, W. (2018). The teaching of science in primary schools (7th ed.). Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Hollins, M., & Reiss, M. J. (2016). A review of the school science curricula in eleven high-achieving jurisdictions. The Curriculum Journal, 27, 80–94.
Hordern, J. (2017). Bernstein’s sociology of knowledge and education(al) studies. In G. Whitty. & J. Furlong (Eds) Knowledge and the Study of Education: an International Exploration (pp. 191-210) Didcot: Symposium.
Jegede, O. J. (1997). School science and the development of scientific culture: a review of contemporary science education in Africa. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 1–20.
Johnson, K., Dempster, E. & Hugo, W. (2011). Exploring the recontextualization of biology in the South African life sciences curriculum, 1996-2009. Journal of Education, 52, 27–57.
Kenya Institute of Education. (2002). Primary education syllabus volume two. Nairobi: Kenya Institute of Education.
Lederman, N., Abd-el-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: towards valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.
Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lim, L. (2015). Knowledge, control and critical thinking: state ideology and the politics of pedagogic recontextualization. Singapore: Routledge.
Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: the contribution of history and philosophy of science 20th anniversary revised and (Expanded ed.). New York: Routledge.
Morgan, J., Hoadley, U. & Barrett, B.D. (2018). Introduction: social realist perspectives on knowledge, curriculum and equity. In J. Morgan, U. Hoadley & B.D. Barrett (Eds.) Knowledge, Curriculum, Equity: social realist perspectives (pp. 1-16) Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Boston College: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study center.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Science K to 7: Integrated resource package. Province of British Columbia: Ministry of Education.
Moses, E., van der Berg, S. & Rich, K. (2017). A society divided: how unequal education quality limits social mobility in South Africa. Synthesis report for the programme to support pro-poor policy development. Stellenbosch University: Research on Socio-Economic Policy.
Muller, J. & Hoadley, U. (2019). Curriculum reform and learner performance: an obstinate paradox in the quest for equality. In N. Spaull & J.D. Jansen (Eds.) South African schooling: The enigma of Inequality. Policy Implications of Research in Education 10 (pp. 109-125). Switzerland: Springer Nature.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O’Sullivan, C. Y., & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS 2011 assessment frameworks. Boston College: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Neves, I., & Morais, A. (2001). Knowledge and values in science syllabuses: a sociological study of education reforms. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22, 531–556.
Nuffic (2015). Education System Kenya described and compared with the Dutch system version 2. http://www.nuffic.nl.documents/education-system-kenya.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2020.
O’Halloran, K. (2007). Mathematical and scientific forms of knowledge: a systemic functional multimodal grammatical approach. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy: functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 205–236). London: Continuum.
Osborne, J. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80, 53–82.
Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3, 173–184.
Pollitt, A., Ahmed, A., & Crisp, V. (2007). The demands of examination syllabuses and question papers. In P. Newton-Baird, H. Goldstein, H. Patrick, & P. Tymms (Eds.), Techniques for monitoring the comparability of examination standards (pp. 166–211). London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Ruddock, G., & Sainsbury. M. (2008). Comparison of the core primary curriculum in England to those of other high performing countries. Research report DCSF-RW048, National Foundation for Educational Research.
Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. M. (2005). Curriculum coherence: an examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525–559.
Sikoyo, L. N., & Jacklin, H. (2009). Exploring the boundary between school science and everyday knowledge in primary school pedagogic practices. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30, 713–726.
Singh, P. (2002). Pedagogising knowledge: Bernstein’s theory of the pedagogic device. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23, 571–582.
Singh, P. (2017). Pedagogic governance: theorising with/after Bernstein. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38, 144–163.
Taylor, N. (1999). Curriculum 2005: finding a balance between school and everyday knowledges. In N. Taylor & P. Vinjevold (Eds.), Getting learning right: Report of the President’s initiative research project (pp. 131–162). Johannesburg: Joint Education Trust.
Tsatsaroni, A., Ravanis, K., & Falaga, A. (2003). Studying the recontextualization of science in pre-school classrooms: drawing on Bernstein’s insights into teaching and learning practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 385–417.
Wellington, J., & Ireson, G. (2012). Science learning, science teaching. 3rd Edition. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
World Population Review. (2020) Gini coefficient by country population. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/gini-coefficient-by-country. Accessed 26 February 2020.
Young, M., & Muller, J. (2016). Curriculum and the specialization of knowledge. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Young, M. (2009). What are schools for? In H. Daniels, H. Lauder, J. Porter, & S. Hartshorn (Eds.), Knowledge, values and education policy: a critical perspective (pp. 10–18). London: Routledge.
Acknowledgements
Part of the present study was commissioned by the Umalusi Council for Quality Assurance in Basic and Further Education. The author would like to thank Dr. Benedict Khoboli, Joan Lindegger, Thobi Kunene, Lynda White and Fannie Matumba.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Funding
Analysis of depth was carried out during a commissioned project for Umalusi Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dempster, E.R. What Knowledge is Worth Knowing?. Sci & Educ 29, 1177–1199 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00153-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00153-3