Abstract
In recent years, both in the Czech Republic and abroad, there has been a debate about the renaissance of educational content and its intended form expressed in national curricula. From the curriculum analyses point of view, it is highly interesting to compare similar curricula created in different contexts, on the one hand, and different curricula created in similar contexts on the other hand. On the basis of the context-curriculum analysis, the curricula of England, Scotland and the Czech Republic were selected. The paper seeks to explore biology education in three National Curriculum Frameworks in the field of primary and lower secondary education. The comparative analysis is a tool for a deeper understanding the intended learning objectives as stated in the curricula. It provides an opportunity to compare different types of curricula and analyse biology content organization and the cognitive demands of the respective disciplinary knowledge, at least judging from the curriculum documents. The paper contributes to comparative curriculum research and provides the knowledge needed for the future process of curriculum review in the Czech Republic. I conclude that, while all these curricula emphasize learning outcomes and experiences, there are distinct differences between them in a stronger emphasis on the disciplinary knowledge or developing transversal competencies. It is reflected in both the learning outcomes formulation and the level of their specificity. This paper offers a contribution to the debate about the way in which particular disciplinary content is organized and taught from the perspective of a specific curriculum policy.
References
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Blažek, R. & Příhodová, S. (2016). Mezinárodní šetření PISA 2015: Národní zpráva: Přírodovědná gramotnost. Česká školní inspekce.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Council of the European Union. (2018). Council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning. Brussels: Council of the European Union.
Department for Education. (2013). The National Curriculum in England: Key stages 1 and 2 framework document. London: Department for Education.
Department for Education. (2014). The National Curriculum in England: Key stages 3 and 4 framework document. London: Department for Education.
Department for Education. (2013). Reform of the National Curriculum in England: Government response to the consultation, conducted February–April 2013. London: DfE.
Drucker, P. F. (2004). Managing in the next society. European Business Review, 16(4), 426–427. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340410547044
Dvořák, D. & Holec, J. (Submitted.) Similar principles, similar weaknesses? A comparison of the Czech and Scottish curricular reforms. The Curriculum Journal.
Dvořák, D., Holec, J. & Dvořáková, D. (2018). Kurikulum školního vzdělávání: Zahraniční reformy v 21. století. Praha: PedF UK.
European Council. (2000). Presidency conclusions, Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. Brussels: European Council.
Goodlad, J. I. & Su, Z. (1992). Organization of the curriculum. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum, (327–344). New York: Macmillan.
Holec, J. & Dvořák, D. (2017). Curriculum for Excellence: Kurikulum založené na kompetencích a zkušenosti z jeho implementace. Pedagogika, 67(1), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2017.429
Hutchinson, C. & Hayward, L. (2005). The journey so far: Assessment for learning in Scotland. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500136184
Meyer, J.W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102506
Meyer, H. D. & Rowan, B. (Eds.). (2006). The new institutionalism in education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mullis, I.V. & Martin, M.O. (2014). TIMMS advanced 2015 assessment frameworks. International association for the evaluation of educational achievement. Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Oates, T. (2011). Could do better: Using international comparisons to refine the National Curriculum in England. Curriculum Journal, 22(2), 121–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.578908
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. OECD publishing.
Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: A report to the Nuffield foundation. London: King’s College. Retrieved March, 17(2010), 261–278.
Priestley, M. (2010). Curriculum for Excellence: Transformational change or business as usual. Scottish Educational Review, 42(1), 23–36.
Priestley, M. & Humes, W. (2010). The development of Scotland’s curriculum for Excellence: Amnesia and déjà vu. Oxford Review of Education, 36(3), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980903518951
Priestley, M. & Minty, S. (2012). Developing curriculum for Excellence: Summary of findings from research undertaken in a Scottish local authority. University of Stirling. Available from https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/7075/1/Stirling%20CfE%20research%20-%20report March%202012.pdf
Pritchett, L., Woolcock, M. & Andrews, M. (2010). Capability traps? The mechanisms of persistent implementation failure. CGD Working Paper 234. Washington, D.C: Center for Global Development.
Ramirez, F.O. & Meyer, J.W. (2002). National curricula: World models and national historical legacies. Stanford University.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C.C., Houang, R.T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S. & Wolfe, R.G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: The Jossey-Bass Education Series.
Schmidt, W. H. & Prawat, R. S. (2006). Curriculum coherence and national control of education: Issue or non-issue? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(6), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270600682804
Scottish Executive. (2004). A curriculum for excellence. Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive. (2006a). A Curriculum for Excellence: Building the curriculum 1: The contribution of curriculum areas. Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive. (2006b). A Curriculum for Excellence: Progress and proposals. Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive. (2007). A curriculum for excellence: Building the curriculum 2: Active learning in the early years. Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive. (2008). Building the curriculum 3: A framework for learning and teaching. Edinburgh.
Stacey, O., De Lazzari, G., Grayson, H., Griffin, H., Jones, E., Taylor, A. & Thomas, D. (2018). The globalization of science curricula. Springer International Publishing.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014). Cross-national policy borrowing: Understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.875649
Straková, J. (2013). Jak dál s kurikulární reformou. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 734–743. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-734
Škoda, J. & Doulík, P. (2009). Vývoj paradigmat přírodovědného vzdělávání. Pedagogická orientace, 19(3), 24–44.
Tupý, J. (2014). Tvorba kurikulárních dokumentů v České republice: Historicko-analytický pohled na přípravu kurikulárních dokumentů pro základní vzdělávání v letech 1989–2013. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Van den Akker, J. (2004). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In Curriculum landscapes and trends (1–10). Dordrecht: Springer.
VÚP. (2007). Framework educational programme for elementary education (PEP EE). Prague.
Walterová, E. (1994). Kurikulum – proměny a trendy v mezinárodní perspektivě. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Wiseman, A.W., Astiz, M. F. & Baker, D. P. (2014). Comparative education research framed by neoinstitutional theory: A review of diverse approaches and conflicting assumptions. Compare, 44(5), 688–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.800783
Young, M. (2007). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. Routledge.