International Comparative Study: the Australian Curriculum and the Singapore Curriculum
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDY: THE AUSTRALIAN CURRICULUM AND THE SINGAPORE CURRICULUM © Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) 2018 This work is copyright. You may only download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal non-commercial educational use or non-commercial educational use within your organisation. All other rights are reserved. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: ACARA Copyright Administration Level 10 255 Pitt Street Sydney NSW 2000 [email protected] 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................4 1 PROGRAM OF RESEARCH .............................................................8 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 8 2 CONTEXTUAL DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS ........................... 14 2.1 Preamble ......................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Demographic comparison: Australia and Singapore ........................................................ 15 2.3 Curriculum design principles and purpose ....................................................................... 31 2.3.1 Education Policy ....................................................................................................... 31 2.3.2 The Singapore Curriculum: Structure and Design principles .................................... 33 2.3.3 The Australian Curriculum: design principles ........................................................... 37 3 COMPARISON STUDY................................................................... 40 3.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 40 3.2 Method............................................................................................................................ 40 3.3 Data collection and analysis ............................................................................................ 40 3.4 Findings ........................................................................................................................... 41 3.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 46 3.6 Curriculum comparison templates by learning area / subject / dimension ..................... 49 a) English ............................................................................................................................. 49 b) Mathematics ................................................................................................................... 65 c) Science ............................................................................................................................ 89 d) Humanities and Social Sciences ....................................................................................... 99 e) Technologies.................................................................................................................. 118 f) Health and Physical Education ....................................................................................... 127 g) Languages ...................................................................................................................... 144 h) General Capabilities....................................................................................................... 162 i) Cross-Curriculum Priority – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures 176 j) Student Diversity ........................................................................................................... 185 4. REFERENCES ............................................................................... 189 5. LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... 200 6. LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................... 202 7. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................ 203 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................... 205 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document reports on the findings of a study comparing the Australian Curriculum (AC) with the Singapore Curriculum (SC). The study is the third in a series of international comparisons with curricula of high-performing countries and systems; these comparisons are a component of the Curriculum business unit’s ongoing program of research, as specified in the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) 2017– 2020 work plan. The comparison studies will contribute to the long-term consideration of international developments in curriculum design and are intended to elicit observations that will inform the next generation of the AC. It is not the purpose of the studies to make judgements regarding the quality or effectiveness of the overall provision of education in any jurisdiction. The selection of Singapore for this comparative study is based on the key criterion stipulated for the research project. Singaporean students perform consistently well in international assessments, learning in an education system that attracts intense interest from around the world. Singapore is highly regarded for its innovative approach to learning, centring on 21st century competencies and values-driven education which represent the latest additions following nearly two decades of curriculum initiatives. As is true of Australia, Singapore is an active participant in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Education 2030 Project. This research project takes place in a climate of increasing international competitiveness regarding student performance in assessment programs such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), together with expressions of concern about the capacity of school curricula to prepare students for the post-school world of the 21st century. Contemporary comparative education research emphasises careful consideration of the local context in which curriculum is developed, rejecting any notion of an easy transfer of design or practice from systems that are judged to produce superior outcomes. A review of the literature relating to comparative education research underpins the methodological approach adopted for these international comparison studies (ACARA, 2017). In this third comparison study, a mixed-methods approach enables a comprehensive picture of the basis for curriculum design in the two jurisdictions. Complementing the demographic and other contextual comparisons, ten small studies reveal the professional judgement of ACARA’s Curriculum Specialists in their analysis of the content and expectations of the two curricula. Drawing on Webb’s Depth of Knowledge schema (1997; 1999), this work includes careful evaluation of breadth, depth and rigour across learning areas. This comparative study is based on the Australian Curriculum Version 8.3 (ACARA, 2016), and the Singapore Curriculum in various versions to align with the rotational update 4 program. The version of the SC used in this study is stated at the beginning of each curriculum comparison subject area. Comparison of the AC with the SC reveals some commonality in relation to intent and content. Both curricula identify traditional disciplines and 21st century competencies as key elements of learning. In Singapore, an ideological statement, supported by a suite of teaching and learning frameworks, underpins delivery: Teach Less, Learn More. This pedagogical directive has no equivalent in the AC, particularly as states and territories carry responsibility for implementation and for decision-making regarding strategies for meeting the needs of their students. Comparison of the AC and SC reveals variability in relation to breadth, depth and rigour. Findings of interest in this comparative study are as follows: Flexibility of the curriculum Singapore’s education authorities encourage greater choice and flexibility in education by affording autonomy and resources to schools to enable them to build on their strengths and create ‘niches of excellence’ (MOE, 2017). One strategy is to provide time for students to focus on core knowledge and skills and to participate in school-based activities, including inquiry-based learning. Notwithstanding the meritocratic principles that characterise the education system, Singapore’s practice of streaming students in secondary schools has become more flexible in terms of acceleration and greater mobility between courses. The flexibility of the AC is demonstrated in ways in which schools, according to jurisdictional and sectoral policies, develop programs that meet the educational needs of their students. Prescription and volume of content In developing the necessary knowledge and competencies demanded of a 21st century curriculum, Singapore has reduced the volume of content by one-third. The focus has been less on disciplinary content and more on learning and teaching outcomes; conversely, more emphasis has been accorded