International Journal of Education and Pedagogy (IJEAP) eISSN: 2682-8464 | Vol. 4 No. 3 [September 2022]
Journal website: http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijeap
THE STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENTS OF 21
ST-CENTURY SCHOOL SCIENCE EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA: A
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Venosha Ravana1 and Sarala Thulasi Palpanadan2*
1 Institute for Advanced Studies, Universiti Malaya, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
2 Center for Language Studies, University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat, MALAYSIA
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Article Information:
Article history:
Received date : 16 June 2022 Revised date : 25 July 2022 Accepted date : 2 September 2022 Published date : 6 September 2022
To cite this document:
Ravana, V., & Palpanadan, S. T. (2022).
THE STAKEHOLDER
REQUIREMENTS OF 21ST-CENTURY SCHOOL SCIENCE EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. International Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(3), 29-37.
Abstract: Aspirations for a 21st-century school science education as endorsed by the Education 2030 (E2030) global project and the P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning give importance to personal well-being and societal values in addition to scientific literacies, competencies, and skills to ensure holistic education for everyone. In Malaysia, the latest framework for secondary school science education also entails focusses on three domains of scientific knowledge, scientific skills, and scientific values and attitudes. The stakeholders involved in the implementation are policymakers, school administrations, science subject teachers, and students. This systematic review performed on 68 articles aims to report on the current stakeholder requirements in realizing a holistic 21st-century school science education in Malaysia and provide directions in tackling current and future challenges on this matter.
Keywords: Science education, 21st-century pedagogies, education stakeholders.
1. Introduction
Science education is the teaching and learning of science through formal and informal methods (Roski et al., 2021). Global efforts for education change represented by the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) call for broader education goals for core subjects like science with heightened importance for individual and societal well-being. In Malaysia, recent development in science education aims to develop learners’ competencies in science and technological innovation in order to help them grasp simple and complex ideas alike, make science-backed choices, and be lifelong learners of science (Ma, 2021). The National Education Philosophy (NEP) for a 21st science education in Malaysia aims to target the mastery of scientific knowledge and technological competencies with attention to responsible citizenship (Sumintono, 2015).
Unlike a traditional science classroom, a 21st-century science classroom as promoted by the E2030 is designed to be more diverse, differentiated, and multi-sourced (Joynes et al., 2020). Science learners are no longer expected to be taught using a one-size-fits-all curriculum that was time-based and textbook-driven. Teachers are now urged to emphasize researcher-driven learning skills that can promote an active learning culture that is student-centered and process-based (Yang et al., 2017). The concept of learning within four walls is also no longer applicable; the Global Classroom model has allowed learners and teachers to work collaboratively with one another at not only the classroom level but also at the inter-school, national and international levels (Chapman et al., 2007). This has resulted in many local and international student programs in Science and STEM that have helped students further explore their interests, talents and experiences with real world research, developments and issues in a humanistic approach (Razali, Manaf, & Ayub, 2020).
2. Literature Review
The science education landscape in Malaysia is slightly different compared to developed countries like the US and the UK; Malaysia has banked heavily in the science and technology field to catapult itself towards the status of a fully developed nation (MOE, 2018). The political and economic angles involved in the planning of science education policies steer the expected outcomes for Malaysian youth in science towards skills and competencies.
While a humanistic approach for school science education is teased using key terms like good moral values, betterment of humankind, wisdom and responsibility, emotional and physical development and high morality, it does not seem to translate well into the national textbooks, reference guides and teaching guides (Azman et al., 2018). The standard science textbooks for primary and secondary schools emphasize on the acquisition of scientific knowledge, and mastery of scientific and thinking skills with a wide and complex syllabus that often leaves teachers with no time to conduct activities beyond the suggested laboratory experiments (Pandian & Balraj, 2010; Razali, Manaf, Talib, et al., 2020). Furthermore, many sub-urban and rural schools are still not equipped with facilities to conduct the HOTS activities suggested in the national textbooks.
This signals a gap between the teaching-learning practices presumed by the policy makers and curriculum planners, and the reality of teaching-learning practices in schools.
Ismail et al. (2019) reported that the Malaysian secondary school administrations do not have a structure or protocol to check on the implementation of 21st century school science education goals in the classrooms. Not only that there is no action taken against teachers who do not conduct hands- on activities for students, the administration is more often not empowered to encourage science activities that may require extra time, budget or resources from the school (Kamaruddin, 2006; Ramli
& Saleh, 2019). Teachers claim that the administration by itself does not really understand the updated science education policies, and is not ready to allow teachers to practice more student-centered pedagogies that seem more appropriate for the new generation students (Barak, 2017; Ismail et al., 2019; Sobral, 2021). This raises questions regarding the effectiveness of the feedback loop between schools and the MOE in communicating the needs and lacks in schools.
Science subject teachers have been found to be struggling to implement policy-level expectations in classrooms without adequate support, facilities and resources (Lay & Chandrasegaran, 2018). Some researchers claim that the Ministry of Education (MOE) keeps churning out newer targets and objectives for school science subjects without taking into consideration of the reality of science subject teaching-learning practices in the schools. The bloated class size and heavy workload that comes with an addition of administrative duties for teachers also leaves them with less to no time to adopt newer pedagogies as assumed by the updated policies (Ismail et al., 2019). Teachers also wish for training programs that can better inform them of sustainable ways to meet the changing needs of students and the MOE (Nair et al., 2013).
While science programs and efforts taken at the policy level seem to be aplenty, students’
performance in and interest to further pursue science subjects is not hitting the mark due to their reported unsatisfactory experience with school science learning (Kamsi et al., 2019). This dangerous trend could result in low number of science and STEM-skilled workers and experts in the country that may tamper its economic growth in the long run. Ismail et al. (2019) has reported that students seem to lose interest in science subject content due to the exam-based and product-based approaches teachers are unfortunately forced to practice. On the other hand, many students that come from a lower socio-economic backgrounds do not seem to pursue science as they presume that there is no future for them in the field (Ting & Tarmizi, 2016). Finally, students of the new generation are more inclined to pursue arts and digital arts given the influence of social media and more exciting and lucrative career opportunities (Nawawi et al., 2021). On that note, some researchers argue that it is possible to revive students’ interest for science by promoting the subject content with more humanistic approach, real world focus and community-based and technology-enhanced activities (Hui & Phang, 2015; Thurley, 2016).
2.1 Problem Statement
While school science education policies in Malaysia are currently designed to match global aspirations, some reports show that the progression into a 21st century science learning culture has been slow (Razali, Manaf, Talib, et al., 2020; Saleh, 2021; Yusoff et al., 2021). The impact of this can realized through two worrying trends. Firstly, students leaving secondary schools show an increasing disinterest in pursuing Science at the tertiary level of education despite various science and STEM programs launched by relevant ministries and schools (Ghavifekr et al., 2016; Kamsi et
in translating policies into classroom practice has also been reportedly underwhelming (Ismail et al., 2019; Lay & Chandrasegaran, 2018; Nasri et al., 2020). Therefore, this study aims to answer the following two research questions:
1. What are the requirements of education stakeholders in implementing a 21st century science education in Malaysian schools?
2. What are the ways to effectively implement a 21st century science education in Malaysian schools?
3. Method
The method section describes actions to be taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information.
A systematic review is conducted on 68 published articles and government official reports using the conventions of a qualitative content analysis (CA). Qualitative CA is an adaptable analytical method that presents data in significant and conceptual descriptions (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). While the findings can be inductive or deductive in nature, depending on the objective(s) of data collection, Elo et al. (2014) state that there are three main phases in conducting a CA: preparation, organization and reporting. A validated checklist adapted from Elo et al. (2014) has been utilised to ensure high rate of rigor, validity, reliability, trustworthiness in extracting themes from the selected documents as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Categories of Documents Selected for Qualitative Content Analysis Stakeholder Document Type (Total number of documents selected)
1. Policy level International corporation publications (6), education performance reports (2), newspaper articles (5)
2. School Management level
Government agency official reports (2), scholarly articles (3)
3. Teacher level Scholarly articles (15), case study reports (5), newspaper articles (5)
4. Student level Scholarly articles (17), case study reports (8) Total: 68
4. Results and Discussion
Data analysis is the most crucial part of the research. Data analysis summarizes collected data. It involves the interpretation of data gathered through the use of analytical and logical reasoning to determine patterns, relationships or trends. Discussion provides the explanation and interpretation of results or findings by comparing with the findings in prior studies.
A content analysis conducted on various documents using a deductive approach shows that current needs for science teaching-learning practices in Malaysia can be differentiated in terms of various stakeholder requirements. In an overview, policy makers, school management, teachers and students are all hierarchical stakeholders in realizing the 21st century Science teaching-learning aspirations.
A simplified requirement distribution that visualizes the findings is shown in Figure 1.
The policy-level requirements as shown in Figure 1 steer towards developing learners’ knowledge, skills and competencies as per current job market requirement. The policy makers are interested in the output of the school science education that can prepare learners to be world class science-skilled workers and experts. In order to achieve that, requirements in terms of active learning practices such as problem-based and project-based learning, along with formative assessments which are more effective in improving students’ learning processes as a whole, are emphasized on. Learning scientific literacies and noble values in engaging active learning environments is expected at the policy level to increase the number of students opting to pursue science or STEM at government-funded or private institutions. To be constantly informed of the needs at the school level, a strong feedback loop between the ministry and schools have been put forward (MOE, 2016). However, the documents reviewed did not provide specific breakdowns of the feedback expected by the ministry on this matter.
Figure 1: Stakeholder Requirement Distribution
Under the school cluster, school management, teachers and students have varied requirements as well.
School managements headed by principals, office admins and head of departments for science and mathematics show more administerial and development-based needs such as 21st century learning facilities, standards for review and assessments, and professional training for science teachers.
Teachers, on the other hand, have expressed for clear briefings regarding the ways to implement latest science education policies and administration-level expectations in the classrooms, along with more training and development opportunities. Apart from that, given the reported issue of policymakers designing school science education policies and frameworks without considering the reality of classrooms in Malaysian schools, teachers require better representation in policy making.
Finally, the needs of students point towards the maximization of an active learning environment.
Students seem to require more opportunities and activities that can show them real world connection to the subject content and learn in exciting ways in classrooms. Motivation is a huge factor that influences students’ performance in science learning (Savelsbergh et al., 2016). For that purpose, students ought to be given more assistance and opportunities to work with one another in a fun learning environment for a highly practical subject like science. An interesting addition to these points; students have been reported to prefer to learn science in bilingual settings (Stapa et al., 2017).
There have been many debates over the years in Malaysia on the ideal language of instructions for science subjects in schools; Essentially, it is best to hear it from students themselves on how they would actually want to learn the subject in the most comprehensible way for them.
The stakeholder requirements show that communication and collaboration at all levels are vital.
Currently, even though policies reflect ideal 21st century school science education aspirations and goals, at the school level, stakeholders still seem to have qualms in terms of implementation, assessment and resources. While teachers should be given a better channel to voice their needs in implementing 21st century teaching-learning practices for science, efforts must be taken by teachers and also school administration to obtain timely feedback from students on the preferred pedagogies.
The feedback channel proposed by the ministry must receive inputs from all three stakeholders at the school level in terms of facilities, resources, budgets, assessment and review standards, training programs, and classroom and online learning activities to make better informed policies.
5. Conclusion
The review conducted has shed some light on the pressing issues pertaining to science education and school science teaching-learning practices in Malaysia. It can be agreed that communication and collaboration between policy makers, school administration, teachers and students must be improved on the basis of feedback and reflection.
More research on these areas would not only help to inform more stakeholders of the current issues and worrying trends, but also provide a lead to find solutions for the issues highlighted. Here are some recommendations for further investigations on this matter:
Recommendation 1: Research should be conducted to obtain feedback from school administration and teachers on the practicality of current science education policies in classrooms.
Recommendation 2: Research should be conducted to study the effects of increasing the involvement of teachers in the policy-making processes. Suggestions can be made to improve the feedback loop between teacher-and-school administration and teacher-and-ministry.
Recommendation 3: Research should be conducted to explore teacher readiness in implementing 21st century school science education in Malaysian schools.
Recommendation 4: An extensive needs analysis should be conducted on Malaysian school students to inform teachers, school management and policymakers of the current lacks, needs and wants of new generation students for the Science subject.
6. Acknowledgement
This research work is supported by UTHM TIER 1 Grant (H807).
References
Azman, M. N. A., Sharif, A. M., Parmin, Balakrishnan, B., Yaacob, M. I. H., Baharom, S., Zain, H.
H. M., Muthalib, F. H. A., & Samar, N. (2018). Retooling science teaching on stability topic for STEM education: Malaysian case study. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 13(10), 3116–3128.
Bambang Sumintono. (2015). Science Education In Malaysia: Challenge In The 21st Century. 1st International Seminar on Science Education (ISSE), 31(July), 1–2.
https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v36i3.16761
Barak, M. (2017). Science Teacher Education in the Twenty-First Century: a Pedagogical Framework for Technology-Integrated Social Constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283–
303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis. SAGE Open, 4(1), 215824401452263. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2158244014522633
Ghavifekr, S., Kunjappan, T., & Ramasamy, L. (2016). Teaching and Learning with ICT Tools: Issues and Challenges from Teachers’ Perceptions. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 38–57.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Hui, Y. X., & Phang, F. A. (2015). Science and arts streams students’ scientific epistemological beliefs. International Education Studies, 13, 88–92. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n13p88 Ismail, M. H. Bin, Salleh, M. F. M., & Nasir, N. A. M. (2019). The Issues and Challenges in
Empowering STEM on Science Teachers in Malaysian Secondary Schools. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(13).
https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v9-i13/6869
Joynes, C., Trust, E. D., Gibbs, E., Trust, E. D., Sims, K., & Trust, E. D. (2020). Overview of emerging country- level response to providing educational continuity under What ’ s working ? What isn ’ t ? April.
Kamarulzaman Kamaruddin. (2006). Management of Effective Schools in Malaysia: Issues and Challenges. Jgbm.Org. http://www.jgbm.org/page/21 Kamaruddin.pdf
Kamsi, N. S., Radin Firdaus, R. B., Abdul Razak, F. D., & Ridha Siregar, M. (2019). Realizing Industry 4.0 Through STEM Education: But Why STEM Is Not Preferred? IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 506(1), 0–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757- 899X/506/1/012005
Lay, Y. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2018). The contribution of teacher preparation on grade 8 students’ science achievement in TIMSS: A comparative study between Malaysia and Singapore.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(4), 576–589. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.576 Low Chapman, Ross L. and Sloan, Terry R., D. R. (2007). Deakin Research Online Online. 2007,
Interrelationships between Innovation and Market Orientation in SMEs, Management Research News, Vol. 30, No. 12, Pp. 878-891., 30(12), 878–891.
Ma, Y. (2021). Reconceptualizing stem education in china as praxis: A curriculum turn. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094961
MOE. (2016). Malaysian Education Blueprint Report (2013-2025). Ministry of Education, 1–178.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
MOE. (2018). Quick Facts 2018. Mininistry of Education, Malaysia, 1–48.
Nair, S. M., Mohamed, A. R., & Marimuthu, N. (2013). Malaysian teacher trainees’ practices on science and the relevance of science education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371311288967 Nasri, N. M., Nasri, N., & Talib, M. A. A. (2020). Towards developing Malaysia STEM teacher
standard: Early framework. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(7), 3077–3084.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080736
Nawawi, N. M., Sout, N. M., Hassan, K. B., Samah, N. N. A., Kamaruddin, H. H., Khalid, R. M., &
Azman, H. H. (2021). The perception of pre-university students on STEM. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1882(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012155
Pandian, A., & Balraj, S. (2010). Driving the agenda of learning by design in science literacy in Malaysia. E-Learning, 7(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.3.301
Ramli, N., & Saleh, S. (2019). FrogVLE application in science teaching in secondary schools in north Malaysia: Teachers’ perspective. Education Sciences, 9(4).
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040262
Ramli, N., & Talib, O. (2017). Can Education Institution Implement STEM? From Malaysian Teachers’ View. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(3), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i3/2772
Razali, F., Manaf, U. K. A., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2020). STEM Education in Malaysia towards Developing a Human Capital through Motivating Science Subject. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(5), 411–422.
https://doi.org/10.26803/IJLTER.19.5.25
Razali, F., Manaf, U. K. A., Talib, O., & Hassan, S. A. (2020). Motivation to learn science as a mediator between attitude towards STEM and the development of stem career aspiration among secondary school students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(1 A), 138–146.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081318
Roski, M., Walkowiak, M., & Nehring, A. (2021). Universal design for learning: The more, the better? Education Sciences, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040164
Saleh, S. (2021). Malaysian students’ motivation towards Physics learning. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(4), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9414
Savelsbergh, E. R., Prins, G. T., Rietbergen, C., Fechner, S., Vaessen, B. E., Draijer, J. M., & Bakker, A. (2016). Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: A meta-analytic study. Educational Research Review, 19, 158–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.003
Science education in Malaysia: Challenges in The 21st Century. (2017). Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 36(3), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v36i3.16761
Siew-eng, L., & Anak, M. (2015). Blended Learning in Teaching Secondary Schools ’ English : A Preparation for Tertiary Science Education in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 167, 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.677
Sobral, S. R. (2021). Bloom’s taxonomy to improve teaching-learning in introduction to programming. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11(3), 148–153.
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.3.1504
Stapa, Siti & Suhaimi, Abdul. (2017). Strategies in Coping with Bilingual Instructions Among Science Students in Malaysia. European Scientific Journal. 13. 10.19044/esj.2017.v13n16p174.
Thurley, C. (2016). Infusing the Arts into Science and the Sciences into the Arts: An Argument for Interdisciplinary STEAM in Higher Education Pathways. Steam, 2(2), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20160202.18
Ting, J. J., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2016). Mathematical learning attributes impacting students’
performance in sarawak. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 10, 159–174.
Yang, J., Yu, H., Gong, C., & Chen, N. S. (2017). Students’ perceptions and behaviour in technology- rich classroom and multi-media classroom. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(3), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.12973/ eurasia.2017.00636a
Yusoff, N., Puteh, M., & Yasin, A. A. (2021). Needs Analysis for Online Game Development for Form 2 Mathematics in the District of Bagan Datuk, Perak. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 11(Special Issue 2021), 29–38. https://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.php/
JPSMM/article/view/4735
