Abstract:

In schools, still, there is a prevailing notion of ‘the traditional curriculum hierarchy’ (Bleazby, 2015, pp. 672) in which some disciplines within the school curriculum are perceived as more valuable than others. It is an epistemic problem that tends to equate knowledge with certainty, and does not fit well with the current trends in secondary education which is increasingly relying on inquiry, and problem- or project-based teaching and learning. These are pedagogical approaches that all require interdisciplinary and thus - non-hierarchical curriculum. Hence, differences in perceived value of different school subjects as any other guiding educational beliefs (Fullan, 2007) may have serious implications on overall school scientific culture and thus also school performance. In the present study, our aim is to examine teachers’, parents’ and secondary school students’ perceptions of the scientific value of different school subjects. We ground our work in the theoretical assumptions of a “bounded” agency of these three groups which perceptions we consider an important element of school scientific culture (Bandura et al., 1996; Barth, 2006).

As part of the research project “Scientific school culture for sustainable society”, we surveyed 579 Latvian secondary school teachers, 1,737 secondary school students and 854 parents of secondary school students about the scientific value of different subjects included in the secondary school curriculum. A 5-point scale from 1 "not at all scientific" to 5 "very scientific" was used to assess the scientificity of the subjects.

Our data analysis indicates the existence of three distinct groups of school subjects in our respondents’ perceptions. The highest scientific value, according to the survey results, have STEM subjects: physics, chemistry, mathematics, which corresponds with the traditional curriculum hierarchy. Also programming and technology was given high scientific value, - different from the traditional frameworks, where technology is considered as “vocational education”, and placed low in the subject hierarchy ladder. Languages were valued high, compared to other humanities (culture, literature, arts).

Based on our results, the danger of marginalization of arts, various subjects of humanities, and social science subjects is discussed, pointing towards potential epistemic harm that calls for systemic solutions. We discuss the internalized curriculum hierarchy being demonstrated by different subject teachers, and its’ inevitable effects on students’ scientific literacy. Implication on school scientific culture from the perspective of power and agency are discussed.

References:
[1] Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206–1222.
[2] Barth, R.S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 8-13.
[3] Bleazby, J. (2015). Why some school subjects have a higher status than others: The epistemology of the traditional curriculum hierarchy, Oxford Review of Education, 41(5), pp. 671-689.
[4] Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Routledge.

Keywords:

Curriculum hierarchy, scientific value of school subjects, scientific school culture, secondary education, scientific literacy.