全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

A Curriculum Theory Analysis of the Prince Edward Island Grade 2 (PEI G2) Science Curriculum: Aligning Pedagogy, Content, and Inclusivity in Early Education

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1114124, PP. 1-15

Subject Areas: Curriculum Development

Keywords: Curriculum Theory, Prince Edward Island, Inclusive Education, Early Science Learning, Constructivist Pedagogy, Curriculum Critique, Assessment Alignment, Pan-Canadian Framework

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract

This paper presents a critical analysis of the Prince Edward Island Grade 2 (PEI G2) Science Curriculum, part of the Atlantic Canada Framework and the pan-Canadian Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes (K-12). Drawing on key curriculum theorists—Tyler, Taba, Stenhouse, Schwab, and Freire—the study examines how the curriculum aligns with pedagogical theory, content progression, and inclusive education principles in early science learning. Through a document-based qualitative approach, the analysis focuses on five dimensions: curriculum aims, pedagogical approaches, content sequencing, assessment alignment, and responsiveness to learner diversity. Findings indicate that while the PEI G2 curriculum is grounded in constructivist and progressive educational philosophies, it lacks clear scaffolding for inquiry-based learning and falls short in its practical support for inclusive teaching. References to inclusivity and formative assessment are present but insufficiently developed, and the absence of cultural responsiveness and digital literacy further limits its relevance to 21st-century educational needs. The paper concludes with theory-based recommendations to strengthen pedagogical clarity, adaptability, and equity in early science education.

Cite this paper

Abdulreza, A. (2025). A Curriculum Theory Analysis of the Prince Edward Island Grade 2 (PEI G2) Science Curriculum: Aligning Pedagogy, Content, and Inclusivity in Early Education. Open Access Library Journal, 12, e14124. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1114124.

References

[1]  Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. University of Chicago Press.
[2]  Biesta, G. (2010) Good Education in an Age of Measure-ment: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Routledge.
[3]  Taba, H. (1962) Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. Harcourt, Brace & World.
[4]  Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. Heine-mann.
[5]  Schwab, J.J. (1969) The Practical: A Language for Curriculum. School Review, 78, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1086/442881
[6]  Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
[7]  Giroux, H.A. (1988) Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning. Bergin & Garvey.
[8]  Government of Canada (1985) Canadian Multiculturalism Act.
[9]  Government of Canada (2019) Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2019-2022. Canadian Heritage.
[10]  Copeland Solas, D. (2018) Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in Ontario Science Classrooms. Canadian Journal of Science Education, 40, 112-128.
[11]  Chen, J., Huang, K. and Zhang, L. (2021) Trends in Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: A Bibliometric Analysis. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49, 823-838.
[12]  Harlen, W. (2000) The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools. Routledge.
[13]  Eshach, H. and Fried, M.N. (2005) Should Science Be Taught in Early Childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 315-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-7198-9
[14]  Florian, L. and Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 813-828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
[15]  Aikenhead, G.S. (2006) Science Education for Everyday Life: Evidence-Based Practice. Teachers College Press.
[16]  Priestley, M. and Biesta, G. (2013) Reinventing the Curric-ulum: New Trends in Curriculum Policy and Practice. Bloomsbury Publish-ing.
[17]  Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2011) The Index for Inclusion: Develop-ing Learning and Participation in Schools. CSIE.
[18]  Aikenhead, G.S. (1996) Science Education: Border Crossing into the Subculture of Science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269608560077
[19]  Ladson-Billings, G. (1995) Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American Education-al Research Journal, 32, 465-491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
[20]  Piaget, J. (1970) The Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. Orion Press.
[21]  Rogers, C. (1969) Freedom to Learn. Merrill.
[22]  Biesta, G. (2007) Why “What Works” Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research. Educational Theory, 57, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x
[23]  Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. Macmillan.
[24]  Shulman, L.S. (1986) Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x015002004
[25]  Sweller, J., Ayres, P. and Kalyuga, S. (2011) Cognitive Load Theory. Springer.
[26]  Banks, J.A. (2008) Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. Wiley.
[27]  Priestley, M. and Biesta, G. (2013) Reinvention of Curriculum: National Frameworks and Teacher Agency. Curriculum Journal, 24, 3-25.
[28]  Harlen, W. (2013) Assessment and Inquiry-Based Science Education: Issues in Policy and Practice. Global Net-work of Science Academies (IAP).

Full-Text


Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133