Introduction

In 2015, higher education students in South Africa participated in country-wide protests calling for free, quality higher education and decolonization of the curriculum to bring about equity and transformation. This protest action is referred to as the #FeesMustFall campaign. Regarding the decolonization of the curriculum, which is the focus of the current research, these nationwide demonstrations persisted even though the democratic government had implemented numerous curriculum reforms (Erduran & Msimanga, 2014; Mnguni et al., 2020). Higher education students argued that decolonization of the curriculum was necessary to bring about social empowerment in line with the view that “education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world” (Mandela, 2003). The use of education to foster social emancipation can be understood in the context of citizenship education (Mnguni, 2021), which aims to prepare students to apply their academic knowledge and abilities to address current social issues and participate in society’s reconstruction (Waghid, 2002). Under such education, young people should be equipped to be responsible citizens who can decide on daily matters using scientific knowledge. Other researchers have proposed using socio-scientific issues to teach science to promote citizenship education (e.g., Zeidler et al., 2005). While the protests were focused mainly on higher education institutions, the arguments made by students are relevant to basic education (i.e., grades R to 12 curricula).

The purpose of the current research was to explore the students’ argument by determining the extent to which STEM subjects adopt a curriculum ideology that fosters citizenship. To do this, we considered the curriculum levels, the curriculum orientation, and different curriculum ideologies as a framework against which school curricula can be understood. We argue that to address socio-economic imperatives, curricula should adopt relevant curriculum ideologies, which should be transmitted across the different levels of the curriculum.

Curriculum reform in South Africa

The South African government has implemented curriculum reforms for citizenship education, intending to redress the disparities and injustices generated by the apartheid regime policies, using education as its weapon (Bantwini, 2010). The main goal has been to “cleanse” the curriculum of subject matter, pedagogy, and other elements that the apartheid government incorporated into education and utilized as a tool for oppression (Mnguni, 2013). To achieve social justice as outlined by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, new curricula have been created to empower the youth with new knowledge and ways of thinking. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 106 of 1996) is the foundation for educational reform and curricular change in the South African education system (Gumede & Biyase, 2016). Since South Africa’s first national democratic elections in 1994, several curriculum changes have been enacted to democratize education and eradicate disparities in the postapartheid education system (Jansen, 1998).

Curriculum 2005 (1998 to 2002)

In 1998, South Africa introduced outcomes-based education (OBE) as its forward-looking, Curriculum 2005, with the view to having overhauled the education system by 2005. This was the most extensive curriculum reform as it was the first postapartheid curriculum and therefore sought to set the tone for a new South Africa (Gumede & Biyase, 2016; Jansen, 1998).

National Curriculum Statement (2002 to 2011)

Soon after the launch of the “OBE curriculum,” concerns regarding the structure and design of the curriculum, teacher training and development, and poor infrastructure were raised. This led to the revision of Curriculum 2005 in 2002 and the introduction of the National Curriculum Statement (NCS).

Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (2012 to date)

While the NCS enjoyed relative stability, concerns were raised by researchers, teachers, and other stakeholders regarding teacher readiness to adopt the NCS. There were specific concerns regarding inadequate teacher training and the lack of government resources and support for effective implementation of the NCS curriculum (Gumede & Biyase, 2016). In 2012, the NCS was amended and adopted as the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) (Erduran & Msimanga, 2014; Khuzwayo & Mncube, 2017). The CAPS curriculum has been in place since, and numerous teacher development and resource allocation efforts have been implemented.

The CAPS curriculum document is a comprehensive, compact policy statement that provides teachers with guidelines on what to teach and how to assess. It also describes basic education’s overarching purpose, guiding principles, and objectives, contextualized in each subject’s CAPS document. Each subject’s CAPS document includes an introduction to the subject’s objectives and guiding principles and specific information on the subject’s teaching, learning outcomes, content requirements, and assessment.

Levels of the curriculum

While education reforms are appreciated in society, scholars suggest that students do not immediately experience the intended curriculum (Goodlad & Associates, 1979). This is because a curriculum occurs on at least five different levels: the ideological, formal, perceived, operational, and experiential levels (Goodlad & Associates, 1979). The ideological curriculum, which “emerges from the idealistic planning process” is the idealized perception of education that politicians and curriculum experts hold (Goodlad & Associates, 1979, p. 60). The formal curriculum, also referred to as the “expert’s curriculum,” is created by curriculum designers and adopted in schools after being legislated by educational authorities. Curriculum statements and guidelines provide documentation for this formal curriculum. Mission statements in the formal curriculum are open to different interpretations by instructors and other collaborators. The perceived curriculum, also referred to as the “people’s curriculum” is what parents and other interested parties believe the curriculum to be, as informed by the media and sociopolitical dynamics. What teachers interpret the formal curriculum to be, and thus teach in their classrooms, is the operational curriculum, also referred to as the “teacher’s curriculum.” Lastly, the experienced curriculum, also referred to as the “student’s curriculum,” is how students experience the curriculum in class.

Given the different levels of the curriculum, the ultimate goal of ideal curriculum reform should be to ensure that the standards established by educational authorities, legislators, and specialists are applied to all levels of the curriculum, as described by Goodlad and Associates (1979). However, the extent to which the curriculum revisions in South Africa have been adapted to the various curricular levels is still unclear. For instance, the extent to which South African teachers have embraced instructional methods that support the constitutional goals of citizenship expressed in the official curriculum is not well documented. In this regard, one must first determine the degree to which curricular reforms are filtered down to the various curriculum levels. In so doing, one can assess the ontology and epistemology of the formal curriculum and investigate the extent to which they are applied to the various levels of the curriculum. These assessments are yet to be done to any extent in the South African curriculum.

Curriculum orientation

Like other developing nations, South Africa’s curriculum reform has mainly focused on updating the learning objectives, the content presented, and instructional design (Chisholm & Leyendecker, 2008; Gumede & Biyase, 2016; Mnguni et al., 2020). Schools have also undergone considerable infrastructure changes, including implementing computer-based learning. Although these changes have been beneficial, one wonders if they are enough to bring about the intended citizenship-related education outcomes, particularly in STEM education. A curriculum, for instance, is a planned and supervised series of educational experiences created by an educational authority and implemented by educational institutions (Mnguni, 2013). Consequently, curriculum reform must ensure that all facets of the curriculum are addressed to achieve the intended reform objectives. This is particularly important because “students do not learn to read, they do not learn math, they do not learn science, they do not learn any of the other subjects and skills endorsed by all parties to the educational enterprise; what they do learn is to be docile and obedient, to value competition over cooperation and to stifle their creative impulses” (Martin, 1976, p. 136). As a result, curriculum reform focusing exclusively on learning objectives, content knowledge, and instructional design may not successfully deliver the required citizenship-related outcomes.

Mnguni (2013) suggests that the underlying educational reasons why students are taught specific content knowledge through a particular pedagogy, in a given order, in a particular setting, and by a specific group of individuals, should be at the center of any curriculum reform. In this sense, a curriculum may be disciplined or citizenship oriented (MacDonald, 1971). In this regard, different fields of knowledge are divided into a discipline-oriented curriculum such that specific knowledge is taught in specific disciplines (Healy & Perry, 2000). Underlying the discipline-oriented curriculum is the ontological argument that reality can be understood through discipline-specific procedures (Healy & Perry, 2000). Therefore, in a discipline-oriented curriculum, students acquire disciplinary knowledge and strategies of inquiry specific to a discipline.

Other scholars have advocated that education should be informed by the sociocultural settings of students rather than the discipline (e.g., Dewey, 2004). In this citizenship-oriented curriculum, education aims to cultivate skills, passions, and habits to create more capable citizens (Waghid, 2002). According to this view, education is a social process taking place in social institutions through which social reform can occur as individuals develop a shared social consciousness.

The extent to which education can be discipline or citizenship oriented in an absolutist sense is debatable. According to Mnguni (2013), a curriculum is not likely to be tailored to either orientation but rather to a combination of the two instead. Considering these arguments, in the current research, we sought to understand the ideological orientation of the STEM subjects following the curriculum reforms that have taken place in South Africa.

Aim of the research

In the current research, we sought to determine the intended curriculum ideology of the STEM subjects in South Africa using qualitative document analysis of the formal curriculum documents. The STEM subjects in this regard were the Natural Sciences, Life Sciences, and Physical Sciences. Life Sciences and Physical Sciences (which include physics and chemistry) are taught in grades 10 to 12, while Natural Sciences is taught in grades 7 to 9. Natural Sciences is a prerequisite for Life Sciences and Physical Sciences. In the South African system, no other high school subjects teach scientific knowledge other than these three. Therefore, students planning to major in any science at university must take these subjects. Consequently, understanding their intended curriculum ideology will help infer conclusions regarding how citizenship-related education is incorporated into the South African curriculum within the context of STEM education.

The theoretical framework that framed the research

We employed Schiro (2012) framework to investigate the curriculum ideologies of the three South African STEM subjects to achieve the above research aim. According to Schiro (2012), at least four ideologies — discipline-centered, service-centered, student-centered, and citizenship-centered — are pertinent to education (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of the curriculum ideologies according to the purpose of the subject, the roles of the teacher and student, the instructional process, and the nature of knowledge and assessment
Full size table

The primary goal of the discipline-centered ideology is to spread “cultural knowledge” peculiar to a discipline through a method of teaching and learning, known as “discipleship” (Cotti & Schiro, 2004). This ensures the diversity and independence of academic fields and the knowledge that goes with them (Schiro, 2012). According to this ideology, knowledge is divided into several discrete disciplines, each with its epistemology and ontology (Ravitch, 2000; Schiro, 2012).

According to the student-centered ideology, teaching and learning are centered on the individual student, their interests, and their capabilities. Students are free to construct knowledge and acquire new skills. As a result, teaching is seen as a developmental process in which teachers serve as mentors and facilitators. Scholars, such as John Amos Comenius, believe that “artisans learn to forge by forging, to carve by carving, to paint by painting,” and that “children learn to write by writing, to sing by singing, and to reason by reasoning” (Schiro, 2012, p. 112). This view laid the foundation for the student-centered ideology. It emerges from the view that education should be student-centered, prioritizing students’ natural interests and abilities to promote their growth.

The service-centered ideology aims to ensure that students can complete particular duties when providing a service as members of society. With little tolerance for error, these operations are frequently carried out by following a predetermined step-by-step methodology. During curriculum development for service-centered ideology, curriculum designers are in control of defining educational challenges and objectives, which are then converted into learning activities according to this service-centered ideology. There is little interdisciplinary teaching and learning in the discipline- and service-centered ideologies. As a result, their graduates face challenges outside the confines of their disciplines.

The citizenship-centered ideology takes its cues from thinkers, such as Lester Frank Ward, who asserts that students may influence their communities’ beliefs and practices via intelligence and knowledge (Cotti & Schiro, 2004). Therefore, the idea that students need to learn actionable knowledge to recognize and transform social injustices is crucial to a citizenship-centered ideology. Advocates of the citizenship-centered ideology argue that it is important to ensure that every day social dynamics are included in the curriculum, and that learning must occur in social contexts where schools are immersed in communities to promote citizenship (Mnguni, 2013).

Research methods

Researchers have proposed numerous methods for curriculum analysis. In the current research, the curriculum documents, known as CAPS documents for Life Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Physical Sciences, were analyzed inductively by using qualitative document analysis as the research technique. As suggested earlier, these were purposively selected as they are the only science subjects taught in high schools in South Africa. We then conducted a curriculum analysis following Ferreira et al. (2003) and Nieuwenhuis (2007) recommendations. This curriculum analysis was also informed by Mnguni (2013), who used curriculum analysis to determine the curriculum ideology of biology, the subject that preceded modern Life Sciences.

First, we read the documents systematically, noting patterns and organization to understand the structure and content of these documents. Our curriculum analysis sought to ascertain the overarching purpose of education in a discipline; the discipline’s ontology, epistemology, and pedagogy; the nature and roles of students and teachers; and the nature of assessment (Schiro, 2012). As did Mnguni (2013), we used a standardized document analysis tool (Table 2) comprised of six open-ended items to guide the analysis. Our study used Mnguni (2013) tool, since the research objectives were similar and the instrument had been validated. A standardized document analysis tool enhances the research’s consistency, validity, and trustworthiness. To further enhance validity, a panel of experts determined the face and content validity of the tool, as suggested by Creswell (2008).

Table 2 The standardized document analysis tool used to review curriculum document components (Adapted from Mnguni (2013) and Schiro (2012))
Full size table

We examined the CAPS documents and developed inductive responses to the standardized document analysis tool items by using verbatim and narrated extracts from the CAPS documents. In this regard, curriculum analysis sought to respond to the open-ended items (Table 1) in the standardized document analysis tool. Responses were in the form of extracts from the curriculum. Schiro (2012) and Mnguni (2018) suggest that the four curriculum ideologies are uniquely characterized by their approach to the purpose of the subject, the roles of the teacher and student, the instructional process, and the nature of knowledge and assessment (Table 1). Therefore, in identifying extracts, we sought to find evidence that aligns the subject, or part thereof, with the characteristics of a specific ideology. For example, we considered the section of the curriculum that describes the purpose of the subject and then sought to determine if there is evidence that suggests that the purpose is as follows:

  • Transmit discipline-specific knowledge, culture, and values (i.e., discipline-centered ideology).

  • Prepare students for practical, vocational, or workforce skills (i.e., service-centered ideology).

  • Focus on individual interests, needs, and experiences of students (i.e., student-centered ideology).

  • Critique and transform societal inequities and injustices (i.e., citizenship-centered ideology).

As Mnguni (2021) and Schiro (2012) suggested, we considered the context, keywords, and descriptors used in specific curriculum sections to determine the implied curriculum ideologies. To ensure credibility, we analyzed the curriculum independently and then compared our analysis by using the best possible extract examples. This process was repeated until a consensus was reached.

Results

As discussed below, our findings suggest that the four curriculum ideologies were reflected in all three subjects, albeit to various degrees.

  1. a)

    Purpose of the subject

Regarding its purpose, Natural Sciences incorporates aspects of the four curriculum ideologies (Table 3). For example, Natural Sciences helps students understand scientific knowledge through inquiry-based learning practices, which is typical in discipline-centered ideology. The discipline-centered ideology is also reflected in Life Sciences (Table 3), where the purpose relates to acquiring discipline-specific knowledge. The service-centered ideology is implied in Natural Sciences, which prepares learners for the workplace by developing work-specific skills. Students are also equipped with self-fulfillment knowledge, skills, and values typical of a student-centered ideology. Natural Sciences students also learn knowledge and develop skills and values needed to play active roles in society, which implies a citizenship-centered ideology. According to its curriculum, Physical Sciences, which adopts multiple ideologies, aims to “make students aware of their environment and equip students with investigating skills relating to physical and chemical phenomena” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 8). It equips students with skills required for “specialty learning, employment, citizenship, holistic development, socio-economic development, and environmental management” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 8).

  1. b)

    The nature of content knowledge

Table 3 Evidence from the curriculum documents suggestive of the adopted curriculum ideologies as reflected in the aim of the subject
Full size table

Regarding content knowledge, we found that Natural Sciences is framed by service- and citizenship-centered ideologies. In this instance, we found that Natural Sciences knowledge is associated with practical skills required for “economic activity.” Additionally, as part of a citizenship-centered ideology, students are trained to participate actively in sociopolitical activities in the community.

The knowledge taught in Physical Sciences and Life Sciences adopts a discipline-centered ideology and is generated from many sub-disciplines. Life Sciences students are exposed to a “broad overview of the subject” to better understand Biological Sciences as a field (Department of Basic Education, 2011a, p. 9). Life Sciences exhibits some of the characteristics of the student-centered ideology by inspiring interest in the subject (Table 4). Our findings also showed that Life Sciences knowledge assists learners in appreciating the relevance of knowledge in everyday life, which is typical in the citizenship-centered ideology.

Table 4 Evidence from the curriculum documents suggestive of the adopted curriculum ideologies as reflected in the nature of content knowledge
Full size table

Physical Sciences prepares students for “future learning” and “specialist learning” in the “six main knowledge areas that inform the subject of Physical Sciences,” which are “Matter and Materials, Chemical Systems, Chemical Change, Mechanics, as well as Waves, Sound, and Light” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 8). The discipline-centered ideology is typified by the prescription of content in particular fields and the emphasis on discipline-specific specialization. Physical Sciences, however, leans toward a citizenship-centered ideology by preparing students for “employment, citizenship, holistic development, socio-economic development, and environmental management” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 8). Furthermore, the curriculum states that “Physical Sciences plays an increasingly important role in the lives of all South Africans owing to their influence on scientific and technological development, which are necessary for the country’s economic growth and the social wellbeing of its people.” The curriculum also states that Physical Sciences “deals with society’s need to understand how the physical environment works in order to benefit from it and responsibly care for it. All scientific and technological knowledge, including Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS), is used to address challenges facing society.” These observations demonstrate a strong focus on citizenship.

  • c)   Instructional design and assessment practices

Natural Sciences appears to incorporate service-centered, student-centered, and citizenship-centered ideologies in the instructional process (Table 5). These ideologies emphasize student participation in learning to encourage active and critical learning. Using informal and continuous assessment methods in the classroom to track student progress and observe students throughout lessons is typical of the three ideologies.

Table 5 Evidence from the curriculum documents suggestive of the adopted curriculum ideologies as reflected in the instruction design
Full size table

Physical Sciences utilizes primarily the student-centered ideology in the adopted instructional design. This curriculum “promotes knowledge and skills in scientific inquiry and problem-solving; the construction and application of scientific and technological knowledge; and an understanding of the nature of science and its relationships to technology, society, and the environment” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 8).

Similarly to Natural Sciences, Life Sciences adopts the discipline-, service-, student-, and citizenship-centered ideologies concerning instructional design. In this sense, the primary purpose of learning is to foster societal change and development. The curriculum document makes the following recommendations in this regard: “… careful selection of scientific content and the use of a variety of methods to teach and learn science [to] promote the understanding of science as a human activity as well as the history of science and the relationship between Life Sciences and other subjects” (Department of Basic Education, 2011a, p. 12). Moreover, the importance of applying scientific knowledge to benefit society and the environment and how science contributes to social justice and societal growth are highlighted. Additionally, we noted that Natural Sciences fosters student growth since “teaching involves the development of a range of process skills ... in an environment that supports creativity, responsibility, and developing confidence” (Department of Basic Education, 2011b, p. 10).

Norm-reinforced assessment is utilized in Life Sciences to assess abilities and support student development. This approach is typical in student- and discipline-centered ideologies. For instance, the Life Sciences curriculum states that “cognitive demands in assessment should be appropriate for the age and developmental level of the students in the grade” (Department of Basic Education, 2011a, p. 67). In addition, self- and peer assessments are employed to “allow students to learn from and reflect on their performance. Informal assessment in this regard may be as simple as stopping during the lesson to observe students or to discuss how their learning is progressing. Furthermore, assessment in Life Sciences must cater to a range of cognitive levels and abilities of students” (Department of Basic Education, 2011a, p. 67).

According to the data, assessment in Natural Sciences conforms to student-centered and citizenship-centered ideologies. In this case, assessment is used to offer students feedback and to guide instructional design. This evaluation is “done through observation, discussion, practical demonstrations, informal classroom interactions, classwork, and investigations” (Department of Basic Education, 2011b, p. 86).

Concerning assessment, Physical Sciences had a strong emphasis on discipline-centered ideology. In Physical Sciences, “Assessment for learning has the purpose of continuously collecting information on a student’s achievement that can be used to improve their learning” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 143). Additionally, “Formal assessment tasks are marked and formally recorded by the teacher for progression and certification purposes. Formal assessment provides teachers with a systematic way of evaluating how well students are progressing in a grade and in a particular subject.” This is typical in discipline-centered ideology. Furthermore, “practical investigations should assess performance at different cognitive levels” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 144). Related to this, “the marks achieved in each of the assessment tasks that make up the Programme of Assessment must be reported to parents. These marks will be used to determine the promotion of students” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 146).

  • d)   The roles of teachers and students in the subjects

Regarding the role of the student in the classroom, the data revealed that all three subjects embrace a mostly student-centered ideology. For example, Life Sciences employs “self-assessment and peer assessment to actively involve the students being assessed. This is important as it allows students to learn from and reflect on their performance” (Department of Basic Education, 2011a, p. 66). Similarly, Physical Sciences uses assessment approaches that “actively involve students,” which “allows students to learn from and reflect on their performance” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 143). Physical Sciences also seeks to “make students aware of their environment and to equip students with investigating skills relating to physical and chemical phenomena, for example, lightning and solubility” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 8). These statements are indicative of a student-centered ideology. In Natural Sciences, students participate in “active and critical learning: encouraging an active and critical approach to learning. Students can gain skills in an environment that taps into their curiosity about the world and supports creativity, responsibility and growing confidence” (Department of Basic Education, 2011b, p. 10).

Regarding the role of the teacher, Natural Sciences embraces both service- and student-centered ideologies. Teachers play a managerial function in the service-centered ideology, but in the student-centered ideology, they serve as facilitators. The Natural Sciences CAPS document suggests that teachers should manage teaching and learning resources (Table 6) which is typical of a service-centered ideology. In addition, teachers of Natural Sciences should provide individual students with the opportunities to develop academic skills regularly. This way, the curriculum emphasizes accommodating students’ needs and talents, indicative of a student-centered ideology.

Table 6 Evidence from the curriculum documents suggestive of the adopted curriculum ideologies as reflected in the roles of teachers
Full size table

Regarding the role of the teacher in Life Sciences, evidence of the four curriculum ideologies was discovered. Here, teachers are intended to help students develop specified abilities and acquire prescribed knowledge, as the service-centered ideology suggests. Life Sciences teachers must also play the role of facilitator, similar to the role of facilitator that teachers of Natural Sciences play. However, Life Sciences teachers are also expected to guarantee that subject knowledge and abilities learned in Life Sciences apply to the context of their students, which is typical of a citizenship-centered ideology.

The adoption of multiple ideologies was also observed in Physical Sciences. Evidence of a citizenship-centered ideology was observed through an emphasis on inclusivity. For example, the curriculum statement (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 5) states that “inclusivity should become a central part of the organization, planning, and teaching at each school. This can only happen if all teachers understand how to recognize and address barriers to learning and how to plan for diversity.” The curriculum further states that teachers should work with stakeholders to promote inclusivity and cater to individual student’s needs (Table 6). A student-centered ideology was also observed where the curriculum states that teachers should provide “students with opportunities to develop and improve their language skills in learning Physical Sciences. It will therefore be critical to afford students opportunities to read scientific texts, to write reports, paragraphs, and short essays as part of the assessment, especially (but not only) in the informal assessments for learning” (Department of Basic Education, 2011c, p. 14).

Discussion

Fundamental to the current research was understanding the extent to which STEM subjects adopt curriculum ideologies that could foster citizenship. Scholars generally agree regarding the significance of curriculum ideology in framing curriculum and instructional design to foster citizenship (Kliebard, 2004; MacDonald, 1971; Mnguni et al., 2020; Schiro, 2012; Van den Akker, 2003). Like the #FeesMustFall protesters, Waghid (2005) proposes that learning should be context specific to solve societal challenges. This type of citizenship education requires a continuous reflection on social dynamics, which leads to the deconstruction and reconstruction of societal values (Waghid, 2005). Additionally, citizenship education encourages the development of students’ self-determination and reflexivity (Waghid, 2005). Citizenship education also entails students’ ability to engage critically in a social conversation using scientifically sound information. Such a curriculum would incorporate a focus on discipline and citizenship. Considering these perspectives, we investigated the curriculum ideology of the three STEM subjects following curriculum reforms in South Africa.

Significantly, we have found that all three STEM subjects, namely, Natural Sciences, Life Sciences, and Physical Sciences, embrace the four ideologies to differing degrees. This is consistent with earlier research, which found that, in actuality, curricula tend to adopt a mélange of ideologies rather than any particular one (Kliebard, 2004; Mnguni, 2013, 2018; Þórólfsson & Lárusson, 2010). In the South African context, where the curriculum is intended to encourage the development of specific skills, and the construction and mastery of knowledge that can be utilized to reduce social evils and promote citizenship, the effect of this amalgamation of ideologies requires thorough investigation.

Given Goodlad and Associates (1979) assertion regarding the different curriculum levels, we posit that while not practically unavoidable, the combination of different curriculum ideologies may result in an “ideological war” in which politicians, curriculum experts, society, teachers, and students interpret and experience the curriculum differently. This aligns with the view that students do not always acquire the formal curriculum as it is interpreted differently by individual teachers (Bantwini, 2010; Van Deventer, 2009). As a result, stakeholders may hold different interpretations of “the overarching aims or purposes of education, the nature of the child or student, the way learning must take place, the role of the teacher during instruction, the most important kind of knowledge that the curriculum is concerned with and the nature of this kind of knowledge, and the nature of assessment” (Schiro, 2012, p. 7).

In South Africa, where curriculum reforms have sought to add material and pedagogy to promote citizenship, we posit that curriculum reforms are not likely to be successful. For example, a citizenship-centered ideology is most appropriate for social emancipation. This is because the citizenship-centered ideology asserts that education and schooling should be part of a social system in which students learn the knowledge and skills necessary to recognize and remedy social ills, such as socio-economic inequities. In line with this, Mnguni (2013) contends that everyday social dynamics must be incorporated into the curriculum. However, our research has shown that the citizenship-centered ideology is not dominant in STEM subjects. Generally, these curricula adopt curriculum ideologies that embrace the status quo rather than challenge it. According to the student-centered ideology, for example, learning and teaching should be focused on the individual student rather than the needs of society at large. In this context, teaching would not nurture learners by promoting the use of knowledge and skills for critical reflection for social empowerment (Waghid, 2002, p. 463). Similarly, Cotti and Schiro (2004) assert that the discipline-centered ideology has as its primary goal the dissemination of cultural knowledge that is unique to that discipline. To succeed in this humanist disciplinarian and intellectual traditionalist mode of education, students must reflect on their specialized disciplines and develop discipline-specific thinking (Cotti & Schiro, 2004; Mnguni, 2021; Schiro, 2012).

Conclusion

We conclude that perhaps students in South Africa were justified in their call for curriculum reform during the #FeesMustFall campaign, which called for the introduction of context-specific citizenship education. We contend that it is unlikely that the South African curriculum would bring about the desired societal transformation because it places little emphasis on a citizenship-centered ideology. We believe a “decolonized” curriculum should emphasize citizenship as its central ideology, even if other curriculum ideologies are partially adopted. We also suspect that the mélange of ideologies may lead to incoherent teaching between schools, as teachers adopt their preferred ideologies rather than those required for citizenship. As such, the experienced curriculum may differ significantly from the ideological, formal, perceived, or operational curriculum.

Further research is required in this regard, including exploring ideologies preferred by various stakeholders. While our research focused on STEM subjects, further research should attempt to determine the overarching curriculum ideology of the South African curriculum as it is collectively reflected in all the subjects. Research is also required to determine the curriculum ideologies enacted in the classroom across subjects and schools. This research could give a detailed understanding of curriculum ideologies in South Africa and could inform future curriculum reforms.