A comparison of the South African and Indonesian teachers preferred curriculum ideology for school science

  • Lindelani MnguniEmail author
  • R. Ahmad Zaky El Islami
  • Headman Hebe
  • Indah Juwita Sari
  • Adi Nestiadi
Research Article


South Africa and Indonesia are currently implementing revised school curricula, which are informed by various socio-scientific, political, and economic imperatives related to global educational reform. Teacher preparedness to implement these curriculum reforms could be affected by their teaching philosophies and preferred curriculum ideologies. The present research sought to determine curriculum ideologies preferred by Indonesian and South African teachers, as a preliminary investigation into teachers’ beliefs about the role of education in different teaching and learning contexts. The research question underlying this non-experimental comparative quantitative research asked: How do South African and Indonesian teachers’ preferred curriculum ideology for school science compare? Data were collected using a previously validated questionnaire from purposively selected science teachers from the two countries. Results indicate that the majority of teachers in both countries generally prefer the student-centered curriculum ideology for school science. Differences were observed between teachers concerning specific aspects of school science. It is concluded that teachers have specific preferred ideologies for school science; however, there are local context-specific factors that inform the preferred ideologies among teachers. Further research is required to determine the impact of the preferred ideologies on teaching and learning and curriculum implementation.


Curriculum ideologies School science Teachers 



The researchers would like to thank all the teachers who participated in the research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. Alanazi, S. (2016). Comparison for curriculum ideologies. American Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 1–110.Google Scholar
  2. Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Curriculum development: teacher involvement in curriculum development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106–107.Google Scholar
  3. Beatty, J. E., Leigh, J. S., & Dean, K. L. (2009). Philosophy rediscovered: exploring the connections between teaching philosophies, educational philosophies, and philosophy. Journal of Management Education, 33(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browne, M. (2018). Development of one’s teaching philosophy: the three “R’s” of relationships, relevancy, and rigor. Empowering Research for Educators, 2, 1), 1–1), 7.Google Scholar
  5. Bustin, R. (2018). What’s your view? Curriculum ideologies and their impact in the geography classroom. Teaching Geography, 43(2), 61–63.Google Scholar
  6. Caukin, N. G., & Brinthaupt, T. M. (2017). Using a teaching philosophy statement as a professional development tool for teacher candidates. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung-Parsons, R., & Bailey, J. M. (2019). The hierarchical (not fluid) nature of preservice secondary science teachers’ perceptions of their science teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cotti, R., & Schiro, M. (2004). Connecting teacher beliefs to the use of children’s literature in the teaching of mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(4), 329–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). California: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Department of Basic Education. (2011). Life sciences curriculum and assessment policy statement grade 10–12. Retrieved from
  13. Department of Basic Education. (2018). Education statistics in South Africa 2016. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education Retrieved from Accessed 26 Jan 2019.
  14. Farahani, M. F., & Maleki, M. (2014). A survey on tendency toward curriculum ideologies among academic board members in educational sciences faculties–Tehran 2010–11. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2392–2396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faryadi, Q. (2015). Teaching philosophy statements. Online Submission, 5(6), 61–66.Google Scholar
  16. Gunawan, I. (2017). Indonesian curriculum 2013: instructional management, obstacles faced by teachers in implementation, and the way forward. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 128, 56–63.Google Scholar
  17. Hodson, D. (2004). Going beyond STS: towards a curriculum for socio-political action. The Science Education Review, 3(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (2012). Identity formation in educational settings: a critical focus for education in the 21st century. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(3), 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, J. C. K., & Yin, H. B. (2005). Teacher receptivity to and concerns about curriculum change: an exploration of research on curriculum implementation. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 1(1), 107–128.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, J. C. K., Yin, H. B., Zhang, Z. H., & Jin, Y. L. (2011). Teacher empowerment and receptivity in curriculum reform in China. Chinese Education & Society, 44(4), 64–81. Scholar
  21. Lim, J., & Meer, J. (2017). The impact of teacher-student gender matches random assignment evidence from South Korea. Journal of Human Resources, 52(4), 979–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.Google Scholar
  23. Mäkinen, M. (2018). Curriculum ideologies reflecting pre-service teachers’ stances toward inclusive education. Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development.
  24. Mnguni, L. (2013). The curriculum ideology of the south African secondary school biology. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mnguni, L. (2018). The curriculum ideology recommended by novice teachers for life sciences in South Africa. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 3099–3108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nuangchalerm, P., & El Islami, R. A. Z. (2018a). Context of science on environmental conservation: comparative study between Thai and Indonesian novice science teacher students. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA, 4(1), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nuangchalerm, P., & El Islami, R. A. Z. (2018b). Comparative study between Indonesian and Thai novice science teacher students in content of science. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(2), 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ornstein, A.C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues. 4thed. New York: PearsonGoogle Scholar
  29. Posner, G. J. (2003). Analyzing the curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Putra, K. A. (2014). The implication of curriculum renewal on ELT in Indonesia. Parole, 4(1), 63–75.Google Scholar
  31. Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Kittleson, J., & Hunter, T. (2013). Understanding the induction of a science teacher: the interaction of identity and context. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1221–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sayed, Y. (2004). The case of teacher education in post-apartheid South Africa: politics and priorities. In L. Chisholm (Ed.), Changing class: education and social change in post-apartheid South Africa (pp. 247–265). Cape Town: HSRC Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schiro, M. S. (2008). Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Schwab, K. (2016). The global competitiveness report 2016–2017. Geneva: World Economic Forum Retrieved from–2018.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2019.
  36. Stearns, E., Bottía, M. C., Davalos, E., Mickelson, R. A., Moller, S., & Valentino, L. (2016). Demographic characteristics of high school math and science teachers and girls’ success in STEM. Social Problems, 63(1), 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2017). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: from the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UN Development Programme. (n.d.). Goal 4: quality education. Retrieved from Accessed 26 Jan 2019.
  39. Welch, W. W., & Lawrenz, F. (1982). Characteristics of male and female science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(7), 587–594.Google Scholar
  40. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Curriculum Studies Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology Education, School of Teacher EducationUniversity of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Science Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and EducationUniversitas Sultan Ageng TirtayasaSerangIndonesia

Personalised recommendations