A Critical Examination of the Prince Edward Island Grade 2 Science Curriculum: Alignment with Constructivist and Inquiry-Based Learning Approaches
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64229/61pbw714Keywords:
Science Curriculum, Inquiry-Based Learning, Constructivism, Curriculum Analysis, Equity in EducationAbstract
This paper presents a critical examination of the Prince Edward Island (PEI) Grade 2 Science Curriculum, evaluating its alignment with established constructivist and inquiry-based learning (IBL) models. Through a curriculum theory lens, the analysis explores how the curriculum's structure, pedagogical approaches, and assessment strategies reflect the principles of theorists like Tyler, Taba, Stenhouse, and Freire. The findings indicate that the curriculum demonstrates significant strengths, including a strong emphasis on hands-on, student-centered inquiry, Science-Technology-Society- Environment (STSE) connections, and diverse, formative assessment methods that foster scientific literacy. However, the analysis also identifies areas for improvement, such as the limited integration of equity, Indigenous perspectives, and critical pedagogy, potential teacher workload challenges, and a need for more standardized assessment rubrics. The paper concludes with recommendations to enhance equity integration, provide targeted teacher support, develop clearer assessment guidelines, and expand socio-scientific debates to further strengthen the curriculum's effectiveness and inclusivity in preparing students for the complexities of the modern world.
References
[1]B. Pei, W. Xing, G. Zhu, K. Antonyan, and C. Xie, “Integrating infrared technologies in science learning: An evidence-based reasoning perspective,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 8423-8443, 2023.
[2]W. Pei, “Curriculum reform of science in elementary schools in China,” Beijing Int. Rev. Educ., vol. 1, no. 2-3, pp. 573-578, 2019.
[3]P.-Y. Lin, C. S. Chai, W. Di, and X. Wang, “Modeling Chinese teachers’ efficacies for the teaching of integrated STEM with interdisciplinary communication and epistemic fluency,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, p. 908421, 2022.
[4]O. F. M. O. F. E. COUNCIL, “CANADÁ. Common framework of science learning outcomes,” Toronto C. Secr., 1997.
[5]U. Läänemets and K. Kalamees-Ruubel, “The taba-tyler rationales,” J. Am. Assoc. Adv. Curric. Stud., vol. 9, no. 2, 2013.
[6]F. C. Lunenburg, “Curriculum development: Inductive models,” Schooling, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2011.
[7]M. James, “An alternative to the objectives model: the process model for the design and development of curriculum,” in Curriculum, Pedagogy and Educational Research, Routledge, 2012, pp. 61-83.
[8]I. Shor, “Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy,” Paulo Freire A Crit. Encount., vol. 23, 1993.
[9]J. L. Bybee, “From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition,” Language (Baltim)., vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 711-733, 2006.
[10]K. Khadidja, “Constructivist theories of Piaget and Vygotsky: Implications for pedagogical practices,” 2020.
[11]P. Black and D. Wiliam, “Assessment and classroom learning,” Assess. Educ. Princ. policy Pract., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 7-74, 1998.
[12]M. T. Flórez and P. Sammons, Assessment for Learning: Effects and Impact. ERIC, 2013.
[13]P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark, “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75-86, 2006.
[14]B. A. Crawford, “Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 916-937, 2000.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Noman Tahir, Waheed Ur Rehman, Syed Salman Mahmood, Mushtaq Haider Malik (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
