Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 739–760 | Cite as

Designing a primary science curriculum in a globalizing world: How do social constructivism and Vietnamese culture meet?

  • Ngô Vũ Thu Hằng
  • Marijn Roland Meijer
  • Astrid M. W. Bulte
  • Albert Pilot
Op-Ed
First Online:

Abstract

The implementation of social constructivist approaches to learning science in primary education in Vietnamese culture as an example of Confucian heritage culture remains challenging and problematic. This theoretical paper focuses on the initial phase of a design-based research approach; that is, the description of the design of a formal, written curriculum for primary science education in which features of social constructivist approaches to learning are synthesized with essential aspects of Vietnamese culture. The written design comprises learning aims, a framework that is the synthesis of learning functions, learning settings and educational expectations for learning phases, and exemplary curriculum units. Learning aims are formulated to comprehensively develop scientific knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward science for primary students. Derived from these learning aims, the designed framework consists of four learning phases respectively labeled as Engagement, Experience, Exchange, and Follow-up. The designed framework refers to knowledge of the “nature of science” education and characteristics of Vietnamese culture as an example of Confucian heritage culture. The curriculum design aims to serve as an educational product that addresses previously analyzed problems of primary science education in the Vietnamese culture in a globalizing world.

Keywords

Social constructivist approach to science learning Primary science education Vietnamese culture Confucian heritage culture Design Curriculum 

Tóm tắt

Việc thực hiện phương pháp dạy học môn khoa học theo tư tưởng kiến tạo xã hội trong các nhà trường tiểu học ở Việt Nam—một ví dụ cho nền văn hóa kế thừa Nho giáo—vẫn tồn đọng nhiều vấn đề và là một thách thức. Bài viết này mô tả một thiết kế chương trình dành cho môn khoa học cấp tiểu học trong đó các đặc điểm của hoạt động học theo lối kiến tạo xã hội được tổng hợp cùng với những đặc điểm cơ bản của nền văn hóa Việt Nam. Thiết kế gồm có mục tiêu học tập và khung chương trình. Khung chương trình bao gồm các pha học tập với các chức năng, hình thức, hoạt động, và các điều mong đợi tương ứng. Mục tiêu học tập của thiết kế này là nhằm phát triển một cách toàn diện kiến thức, kĩ năng khoa học và thái độ học tập tích cực cho học sinh tiểu học. Từ những mục tiêu ấy, bốn pha học tập được thiết kế là: Thu hút, Trải nghiệm, Trao đổi, và Tiếp nối được liên hệ đến những tri thức về giáo dục “bản chất của khoa học” và đặc điểm của nền văn hóa Việt Nam—được dùng như một ví dụ cho nền văn hóa kế thừa Nho giáo. Thiết kế chương trình dạy học này là một sản phẩm giáo dục của thời đại toàn cầu hóa. Nó cũng được coi là một giải pháp cho những vấn đề còn tồn đọng trong hoạt động giáo dục môn khoa học ở cấp tiểu học tại Việt Nam.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The researchers wish to thank Koos Kortland and Hanno van Keulen (both at Utrecht University) for their supportive contributions to the design of learning phases and science units of the formal curriculum.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701. doi: 10.1080/09500690050044044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. W. (2007a). Perspectives on science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3–30). Oxford, England: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. D. (2007b). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Oxford, England: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education—A social constructivist approach. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, G. D. (2001). Science education from a social constructivist position: A worldview. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20, 443–452. doi: 10.1023/A:1012035404449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berthrong, J. H., & Berthrong, E. N. (2000). Confucianism: A short introduction. Oxford: One world.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 45–67). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Comparative Education Research Centre.Google Scholar
  8. Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., De Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1063–1086. doi: 10.1080/09500690600702520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 865–883. doi: 10.1002/tea.20333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bybee, R., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.Google Scholar
  11. Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learning—A question of style. Education and Training, 41(6/7), 294–304. doi: 10.1108/00400919910285345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coll, R. K., & Taylor, N. (2012). An international perspective on science curriculum development and implementation. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. II, pp. 771–782). Dodrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cotton, D. R. E. (2006). Implementing curriculum guidance on environmental education: The importance of teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daft, R. L., & Marcic, D. (2000). Understanding management (3rd ed.). Orlando: Harcourt College Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Đạm, Q. (1994). Nho giáo xưa và nay [Confucianism: past and present]. Hanoi: Culture Publisher.Google Scholar
  16. Dekkers, P. (2006). Reconstructing the creature—Exploring design criteria for teaching NOS. In E. V. Den Berg, T. Ellermeijer, & O. Stooten (Eds), Proceedings of conference. Modelling in physics and physics education (pp. 459–464). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  17. Doãn, P. Đ. (1999). Một số vấn đề về Nho giáo Việt Nam [some issues on Vietnamese confucianism]. Hanoi, Vietnam: Publishing House of National Politics.Google Scholar
  18. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1998). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287:AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76, 493–506. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730760504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science—From behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. L. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school—Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies; The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gagne, R. M., & Medsher, K. L. (1996). The condition of learning: Training application. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–155. doi: 10.2307/747886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hammond, L.-D., Austin, K., Orcutt, S., & Rosso, J. (2001). How people learn: Introduction to learning theories. Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/class/ed269/hplintrochapter.pdf.
  26. Hand, B. (2011). An immersion approach to argument-based inquiry—Does it look the same in different countries? In Y. Kim, J. Park, H. E. Seo, J. A. Lee, & J. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2011 EASE international conference—Lighting the world with science (pp. 45–54). Gwangju: The University of Chosun.Google Scholar
  27. Hand, B., Treagust, D. F., & Vance, K. (1997). Student perceptions of the social constructivist classroom. Science Education, 81, 561–575. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199709)81:5<561:AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hằng, N. V. T., Meijer, M. R., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2015). The implementation of a social constructivist perspective in primary science education in Confucian heritage culture. Cultural Studies of Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11422-014-9634-8.
  29. Harkness, S. S., Morrone, A. S., & D’Ambrosio, B. (2007). Pre-service elementary teachers’ voices describe how their teacher motivated them to do mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 235–254. doi: 10.1007/s10649-006-9045-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoan, Đ. Đ. (2002). Một số vấn đề cơ bản của chương trình tiểu học mới [Some basic issues of the new primary curricula]. Hanoi: Education Publisher.Google Scholar
  31. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Jedege, O. J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1999). Transcending cultural borders: Implications for science teaching. Journal for Science & Technology Education, 17, 45–66.Google Scholar
  33. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1–32. doi: 10.1002/sce.20240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lê, N. H. (1992). KhổngTử [Confucius]. Hanoi: Culture Publisher.Google Scholar
  36. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  37. Lijnse, P., & Klaassen, K. (2010). Didactical structures as an outcome of research on teaching-learning sequences? In K. Kortland & K. Klaassen (Eds.), Designing theory-based teaching-learning sequences for science education (pp. 157–174). Utrecht: Faculty of Science, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  38. Liu, N. F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 370–391. doi: 10.1002/tea.20007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532. doi: 10.1023/A:1008642510402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meijer, M. R., Prins, G. T., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2008). Method of educational design-based research in science education: Why and how? In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Promoting successful science education—The worth of science education research (pp. 31–46). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.Google Scholar
  42. Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  43. Morrone, A. S., Harkness, S. S., D’Ambrosio, B., & Caulfield, R. (2004). Patterns of instructional discourse that promote the perception of mastery goals in a social constructivist mathematics course. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 19–38. doi: 10.1023/B:EDUC.0000028401.51537.a5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neuman, Y., & Bekerman, Z. (2000). Cultural resources and the gap between educational theory and practice. Teachers College Record, 103, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nguyen, M., Elliott, J., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2009). Neocolonialism in education: Cooperative learning, Western pedagogy in an Asian context. Comparative Education, 45, 109–130. doi: 10.1080/03050060802661428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Örtenblad, A., Babur, M., & Kumari, R. (2012). Learning in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32, 131–136. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2012.684950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Phuong-Mai, N., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2005). Cooperative learning vs. Confucian heritage culture’ collectivism: Confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch. Asia Europe Journal, 3, 403–419. doi: 10.1007/s10308-005-0008-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pitsoe, V. J. (2007). A conceptual analysis of constructivist classroom management. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
  49. Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 87–100. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryan, J., & Louie, K. (2007). False dichotomy? ‘Western and Confucian’ concepts of scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39, 404–417. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00347.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scott, W. A. (1962). Cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility. American Sociological Association, 25, 405–414. doi: 10.2307/2785779.Google Scholar
  52. Serpell, R. (2007). Bridging between orthodox Western higher educational practices and an African sociocultural context. Comparative Education, 43, 23–51. doi: 10.1080/03050060601162396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stuckey, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 34, 1–34. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2013.802463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Subramaniam, G. (2008). Confronting Asian concerns in engaging learners to online education. International Education Studies, 1, 10–18. doi: 10.5539/ies.v1n4p10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sunal, S. C., & Haas, M. E. (2002). Social studies for the elementary and middle grades. A constructivist approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  56. Thêm, T. N. (1997). Tìm về bản sắc văn hóa Việt Nam [Research on Vietnamese cultural distinctions]. Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh Publisher.Google Scholar
  57. Thi Tuyet Tran. (2013). Is the learning approach of students from the Confucian heritage culture problematic? Educational Research, Policy & Practice, 12(57–65), 1067. doi: 10.1007/s1-012-9131-3.Google Scholar
  58. Tobin, K. G. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  59. Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  60. Van den Akker, J. J. H. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. J. H. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscape and trends (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Watson, J. (2001). Social constructivism in the classroom. Support for Learning, 16, 140–147. doi: 10.1111/1467-9604.00206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn (Rev ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  65. Wolters, C. (2011). Regulation of motivation: Contextual and social aspects. Teacher’s College Record, 113, 265–283.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ngô Vũ Thu Hằng
    • 1
  • Marijn Roland Meijer
    • 2
  • Astrid M. W. Bulte
    • 3
  • Albert Pilot
    • 3
  1. 1.Hanoi National University of EducationCau GiayVietnam
  2. 2.Communication Centre of Chemistry (C3)Den HaagThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics EducationUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options