Research Article

Science curricula for ages 11-12 in developing Asian education systems: A comparative analysis of India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand

Eleftheria Tsiouri 1 * , Charilaos Tsihouridis 1 , Konstantinos T. Kotsis 2
More Detail
1 Department of Educational Sciences and Social Work, University of Patras, Patras, GREECE2 Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, GREECE* Corresponding Author
Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 6(2), 2026, 105-122, https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/19501
Submitted: 28 June 2026, Published: 06 October 2026
OPEN ACCESS   11 Views   4 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a qualitative comparative analysis of the intended science curricula for students aged approximately 11-12 in six developing Asian education systems: India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand. Drawing on official curriculum documents, international assessment data used as contextual evidence, and relevant policy and research literature, the study examines historical reform trajectories, curriculum structure and content, prescribed pedagogical approaches, and reported implementation conditions. The findings indicate partial convergence in official curriculum priorities, particularly around scientific literacy, inquiry, scientific processes, competency development, and connections between science and everyday life. These shared priorities are nevertheless organized through distinct national structures, including integrated subjects, standards-based frameworks, spiral progression, and interdisciplinary arrangements. Evidence concerning classroom enactment is more limited, heterogeneous, and unevenly distributed across the six systems. Country-specific studies identify possible implementation constraints related to teacher preparation, instructional resources, assessment, language, and geographical inequality, but the available evidence does not establish that these conditions occur with equal prevalence or intensity in every country. The comparison also identifies distinctive features of the intended curricula, including Indonesia’s integrated IPAS model, India’s constructivist framework, Malaysia’s STEM orientation, Pakistan’s effort to establish common standards, the Philippines’ spiral progression model, and Thailand’s attention to the nature of science. The study concludes that curriculum design and implementation support should be evaluated together through country-specific evidence rather than through uniform cross-national policy prescriptions.
Keywords: science education, developing Asia, comparative curriculum analysis, implementation gap, inquiry-based learning

CITATION (APA)

Tsiouri, E., Tsihouridis, C., & Kotsis, K. T. (2026). Science curricula for ages 11-12 in developing Asian education systems: A comparative analysis of India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand. Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 6(2), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/19501

REFERENCES

  1. Arlinwibowo, J., Retnawati, H., Pradani, R. G., & Fatima, G. N. (2023). STEM implementation issues in Indonesia: Identifying the problems source and its implications. The Qualitative Report, 28(8), 2213-2229. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.5667
  2. Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan. (n.d.-a). Capaian pembelajaran mata pelajaran ilmu pengetahuan alam (IPA), fase D [Learning outcomes for the natural sciences (IPA) subject, phase D]. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi. https://lmsspada.kemdiktisaintek.go.id/mod/resource/view.php?id=152810
  3. Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan. (n.d.-b). Capaian pembelajaran mata pelajaran ilmu pengetahuan alam dan sosial (IPAS), fase A-C [Learning outcomes for the natural and social sciences (IPAS) subject, phases A–C]. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi. https://kurikulum.kemdikbud.go.id/file/file/cp/dasmen/13.%20CP%20IPAS.pdf
  4. Balagtas, M. U., Garcia, D. C. B., & Ngo, D. C. (2019). Looking through Philippine’s K to 12 curriculum in mathematics and science vis-a-vis TIMSS 2015 assessment framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(12), Article em1788. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108494
  5. Bansal, G. (2021). Indian pre-service teachers’ conceptualisations and enactment of inquiry-based science education. Education 3-13, 49(3), 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1854957
  6. Bansal, G. (2022). The hegemony of English in science education in India: A case study exploring impact of teacher orientation in translating policy in practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 17, 439-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-021-10068-2
  7. Camara, J. S. (2020). Post-evaluative insights among Filipino engineering students on alignment, spirality, strand, and awards (ASSA) in K to 12 implementation. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(2), 1374-1380.
  8. Cheng, M. M. H., Jones, A., & Buntting, C. (Eds.). (2017). Studies in science education in the Asia-Pacific Region. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717678
  9. Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide: Science, grades 3-10. Government of the Philippines. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Science-CG_with-tagged-sci-equipment_revised.pdf
  10. Department of Education. (2023). MATATAG K to 10 curriculum of the K to 12 program: Science curriculum guide, grades 4 and 7. Government of the Philippines. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/MATATAG-Science-CG-Grade-4-and-7.pdf
  11. El Islami, R. A. Z., Xue, S., Sari, I. J., Ngan, L. H. M., Khwaengmake, V., Khan, S., Bien, N. V., Faikhamta, C., Khuyen, N. T. T., & Prasoplarb, T. (2022). A comparison of school science curricula of Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 22(2), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.59588/2350-8329.1421
  12. Errabo, D. D., Fujinami, K., & Isozaki, T. (2024). Epistemic goals and practices in biology curriculum—the Philippines and Japan. Research in Science Education, 54, 1053-1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10170-9
  13. Garcia, R. E. (2021). Factors that influence students’ learning progress in the science spiral progression curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 3(2), 79-99. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2020.5
  14. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. Journal of Economic Growth, 17(4), 267-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-012-9081-x
  15. Hemtasin, C., See-Onjan, C., & Payoungkiattikun, W. (2026). Designing a phenomenon-based learning boxset to foster scientific literacy in under-resourced schools. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 13, Article 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102601
  16. Ilma, A. Z., Widowati, A., & Sariyah. (2022). Content analysis of science curriculum on plant subjects in different countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Caribbean. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2600, Article 030004. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0112255
  17. Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. (2017). Learning standards and indicators and core learning content for science and technology learning area (revised B.E. 2560) according to the basic education core curriculum B.E. 2551. Ministry of Education, Thailand. https://www.ipst.ac.th/curriculum
  18. Kotsis, K. T. (2024a). Integrating inquiry-based learning in the new Greek primary science curriculum. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(6), 63-71. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2024.5.6.899
  19. Kotsis, K. T. (2024b). Physics education in EU high schools: Knowledge, curriculum, and student understanding. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, 2(4), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2024.2(4).03
  20. Kotsis, K. T. (2024c). The significance of experiments in inquiry-based science teaching. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(2), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2024.5.2.815
  21. Kotsis, K. T., Gikopoulou, O., Patrinopoulos, M., Kapotis, E., & Kalkanis, G. T. (2025a). The new Greek inquiry-based learning science curriculum for primary education. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher, 5(3), Article em083. https://doi.org/10.29333/mathsciteacher/16846
  22. Kotsis, K. T., Randjelovic, B. M., Tsiouri, E., & Ilibašić, S. (2025b). Comparing science curriculum for primary education in Greece and Serbia. Journal of Studies in Education, 15(1), 57-77. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v15i1.22528
  23. Limjap, A. A., Santos, G. N. C., Lapinid, M. R. C., Roleda, L. S., & Anito, J. C. (2017). Gearing K to 12 Philippine science for national development and ASEAN competitiveness. Advanced Science Letters, 23(2), 1068-1072. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7497
  24. Mashami, R. A. (2025). Green chemistry and cultural wisdom: A pathway to improving scientific literacy among high school students. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, Article 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101653
  25. Mashita, C., Ramli, M., & Karyanto, P. (2017). Practices of inquiry-based science education: Case study of Thailand’s junior high school. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(S2), 51-72.
  26. Ministry of Education Malaysia, Curriculum Development Division. (n.d.-a). Dokumen standard kurikulum dan pentaksiran: KSSR (semakan 2017), sains tahun 5 [Curriculum and assessment standard document: KSSR (2017 revision), year 5 science]. Ministry of Education Malaysia. https://bpk.moe.gov.my/kurikulum/kssr/kssr-tahun-5
  27. Ministry of Education Malaysia, Curriculum Development Division. (n.d.-b). Dokumen standard kurikulum dan pentaksiran: KSSR (semakan 2017), sains tahun 6 [Curriculum and assessment standard document: KSSR (2017 revision), science year 6]. Ministry of Education Malaysia. https://bpk.moe.gov.my/kurikulum/kssr/kssr-tahun-6
  28. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025. Ministry of Education Malaysia. https://www.moe.gov.my/pelan-pembangunan-pendidikan-malaysia
  29. Ministry of Education Thailand. (2008). The basic education core curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). Office of the Basic Education Commission. https://academic.obec.go.th/images/document/1525235513_d_1.pdf
  30. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National education policy 2020. Ministry of Education. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf
  31. Nasir, M., Nastiti, L. R., & Yuliani, H. (2020). Obstacle on the implementation of the scientific approach to the curriculum 2013: A case study of lesson study in Palangka Raya City. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1511, Article 012108. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1511/1/012108
  32. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). National curriculum framework 2005. NCERT. https://ncert.nic.in/pdf/nc-framework/nf2005-english.pdf
  33. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2023). National curriculum framework for school education 2023. Ministry of Education. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/ncf_2023.pdf
  34. National Curriculum Council. (2020a). Single national curriculum: General science, grades IV-V. Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, Government of Pakistan. https://www.mofept.gov.pk/SiteImage/Misc/files/SNC%20General%20Science%204-5.pdf
  35. National Curriculum Council. (2020b). Single national curriculum: General science, grades VI-VIII—Zero draft. Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, Government of Pakistan. https://www.mofept.gov.pk/SiteImage/Misc/files/Draft%20Science%20SNC%20%286-8%29.pdf
  36. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
  37. Panth, B., & Maclean, R. (Eds.). (2020). Anticipating and preparing for emerging skills and jobs: Key issues, concerns and prospects. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7018-6
  38. Prasoplarb, T., Faikhamta, C., Khan, S., Lertdechapat, K., Van Bien, N., El Islami, R. A. Z., Xue, S., Khwaengmek, V., & Hennessey, A. (2024). Science and engineering practices: A comparative analysis of Indonesian, Thai and Vietnamese science curricula. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 10(2), 350-384. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-bja10084
  39. Sariyah, & Widowati, A. (2022). Animal subjects on science curriculum in ASEAN countries: Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Philippines. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2600, Article 030003. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0112249
  40. Shah, W. A. (2023). Nation, alterity and competing discourses: Rethinking textbooks as ideological apparatuses. Linguistics and Education, 78, Article 101250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2023.101250
  41. Sulaeman, N. F., Putra, P. D. A., & Kumano, Y. (2022). Towards integrating STEM education into science teacher preparation programmes in Indonesia: A challenging journey. In M. M. H. Cheng, C. Buntting, & A. Jones (Eds.), Concepts and practices of STEM education in Asia (pp. 237-252). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2596-2_13
  42. Symaco, L. P., & Hayden, M. (Eds.). (2024). International handbook on education in Southeast Asia. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8136-3
  43. Tsiouri, E., Tsihouridis, C., & Kotsis, K. T. (2024). The science curricula for ages 11-12 across the European Union: A comparative analysis. Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 4(2), 39-46. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/15732
  44. Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Measuring innovation in education 2019: What has changed in the classroom? OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311671-en
  45. von Davier, M., Kennedy, A. M., Reynolds, K. A., Fishbein, B., Khorramdel, L., Aldrich, C. E. A., Bookbinder, A., Ummugal, B., & Yin, L. (Eds.). (2024). TIMSS 2023 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.timss.rs6460
  46. World Bank. (2018). Growing smarter: Learning and equitable development in East Asia and Pacific. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1261-3
  47. World Bank. (2020). The promise of education in Indonesia. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/34807
  48. Yasmin, M., Asif, S., Naseem, F., & Jabeen, T. (2026). Red, blue or green discourse: An ecolinguistic analysis of educational indicators for sustainability in school textbooks in Pakistan. Sustainable Futures, 11, Article 101761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2026.101761
  49. Yuenyong, C., & Narjaikaew, P. (2009). Scientific literacy and Thailand science education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(2), 201-214.