Science and Engineering Practices: a Comparative Analysis of Indonesian, Thai and Vietnamese Science Curricula
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Southeast Asian countries are embracing updated integrated curricula, such as STEM , which are impacted by socio-scientific, political, and economic reasons related to global educational reform. This study compares science curricula regarding science and engineering practices ( SEP s) in Indonesian, Thai, and Vietnamese science curricula. The SEP s in the curricular learning outcomes were examined using qualitative content analysis. According to the analysis, the learning outcomes of the three Southeast Asian countries were more aligned with science than engineering. Students most often practiced ‘constructing scientific explanations,’ while the least common was ‘asking questions and defining problems’ across countries. Compared to Indonesia and Vietnam, the Thai curriculum typically included ‘developing a model’, a key science and engineering practice. The findings suggest that curriculum design may reconsider integration, curricular coherence, and learning goals for modelling, asking questions, and engineering to increase engagement with diverse activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it