A case study of the curriculum continuity between junior secondary "life and society" and senior secondary economics curriculum in Hong Kong

Abstract

Curriculum continuity is regarded as a desirable attribute of curriculum as learning should be based on prior knowledge. Currently, there is no compulsory Economics curriculum at junior level. Under the Personal, Social and Humanities Education Key Learning Area (PSHE KLA), Life and Society (L&S) is the subject to provide essential economics learning elements in junior secondary forms. However, there is a lack of research on the curriculum continuity of secondary Economics education in Hong Kong. This study seeks to explore the curriculum continuity between the L&S and HKDSE Economics curriculum. The curriculum continuity in the official documents and school documents is at first explored. The study then seeks to understand the continuity between the school-based L&S and HKDSE Economics curriculum from the perspective of Economics teachers and students, as well as the effects of their views on their teaching practices and learning experiences respectively. Qualitative research was adopted in this study. Documentary analysis was carried out to understand the intentions of the curriculum developers and hence the curriculum continuity embedded in the official L&S and Economics curriculums. Interviews with teachers and students were conducted respectively to understand their perceptions towards the curriculum continuity between the school-based L&S and Economics curriculums at a local school (hereinafter referred to as “the target school”). The findings revealed that the continuity between the official L&S and Economics curriculum is strong in terms of objectives, teaching pedagogies, and assessment, but not in content because of the fundamental differences in the knowledge covered in the two subjects. Concerning the school-based curriculums, teachers believe a certain degree of curriculum continuity exists in objectives, teaching content, and teaching method, but not in assessment. The assessment discontinuity also creates the biggest teaching difficulty to teachers as the training and exercises provided in the junior form fail to facilitate students’ learning in the senior form. On the other hand, students concur that strong continuity exists in teaching pedagogies and weak continuity exists in objectives and assessment. The objective and assessment discontinuity between the two curriculums also impose learning difficulty to students, who are found to rely on memorization of subject matters, adopt a surface learning method, and rely heavily on drilling of past papers to comply with the requirements of the public examinations. Finally, recommendations are offered to enhance the curriculum continuity between the two curriculums. Regarding the school-based curriculums, there is a need to finetune the teaching objectives and assessment focus of the L&S curriculum, introduce interleaving practices in the two curriculums to increase content familiarity, and strengthen the horizontal integration of English and L&S. Suggestions on the official curriculums are also raised with the intention of enhancing the curriculum continuity of the L&S and Economics education on the whole, such as introducing multiple modes of assessment in the public examination and increasing the proportion of normative economics and value judgment in the Economics curriculum.