Curricular Studies & Perspectives
ISSN (Online): 3108-6772

Research article    |    Open Access
Curricular Studies & Perspectives 2025, Vol. 1(1) 49-68

Pedagogical codes of sustainable PISA success: a comparative analysis of selected Asian Curricula through Schiro’s ideologies

Bingül Şahin, Fatma Zehra Çakır, Mehmet Gedik, Pelin Erdoğan, Selim Alnıaçık, Sinan Babur, Adnan Taşgın

pp. 49 - 68   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/csp.2025.1384.4

Publish Date: December 29, 2025  |   Single/Total View: 28/16   |   Single/Total Download: 42/21

PDF Download

Abstract

A curriculum is not merely technical documents listing content and objectives; rather, they are ideological texts that reflect the future vision of societies and the ideal human type. In this context, it is crucial to understand the ideological foundations upon which the curricula of countries demonstrating sustainable success in PISA results are built. The aim of this study is to comparatively examine the curricula of Singapore, China, and Japan within the framework of Schiro's curriculum ideologies. Employing a comparative case study design—a qualitative research method—data were collected through document analysis of the respective countries' national curricula, policy documents, and OECD reports. The selected documents were subjected to content analysis using a deductive approach based on Schiro's four fundamental ideologies. The research findings revealed that Singapore possesses a flexible curriculum where all four ideologies coexist in a dynamic balance; in China, the Social Efficiency and Scholar Academic ideologies maintain their dominance; whereas in Japan, the Scholar Academic perspective has been integrated with Learner-Centered and Social Reconstruction ideologies through recent reforms. Consequently, the study suggests that the sustainable PISA success of the examined countries is not rooted in a single ideology, but appears to be supported by a mixed and flexible curriculum structure shaped by economic goals, cultural values, and social needs.

Keywords: Curriculum Ideologies, Comparative Education, PISA 2022, Educational Reforms

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Sahin, B., Cakir, F.Z., Gedik, M., Erdogan, P., Alniacik, S., Babur, S., & Tasgin, A. (2025). Pedagogical codes of sustainable PISA success: a comparative analysis of selected Asian Curricula through Schiro’s ideologies. Curricular Studies & Perspectives, 1(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.29329/csp.2025.1384.4

Harvard
Sahin, B., Cakir, F., Gedik, M., Erdogan, P., Alniacik, S., Babur, S. and Tasgin, A. (2025). Pedagogical codes of sustainable PISA success: a comparative analysis of selected Asian Curricula through Schiro’s ideologies. Curricular Studies & Perspectives, 1(1), pp. 49-68.

Chicago 16th edition
Sahin, Bingul, Fatma Zehra Cakir, Mehmet Gedik, Pelin Erdogan, Selim Alniacik, Sinan Babur and Adnan Tasgin (2025). "Pedagogical codes of sustainable PISA success: a comparative analysis of selected Asian Curricula through Schiro’s ideologies". Curricular Studies & Perspectives 1 (1):49-68. https://doi.org/10.29329/csp.2025.1384.4

References
  1. Bamkin, S. (2019). Moral education in Japan: Values in a changing society. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bayirli, A. (2020). Comparison of the Singapore education system and the Turkish education system and implications for Turkey. International Journal of Social Sciences Academy, 2(4), 1104–1132. https://doi.org/10.47994/usbad.830544 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Bilir, G., & Mızıkacı, F. (2023). Theoretical foundations of curriculum: Radical curriculum. The Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 12(1), 71–79. http://www.jret.org/FileUpload/ks281142/File/12.01._2023_makale_6.pdf [Google Scholar]
  4. Bjork, C. (2016). High-stakes schooling: What we can learn from Japan’s experiences with testing, accountability, and education reform. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Boman, B. (2020). What makes Estonia and Singapore so good? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1701420 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Cantoni, D., Yang, D. Y., & Yuchtman, N. (2023). Curriculum and ideology: Evidence from China. In D. Rohner & E. Zhuravskaya (Eds.), Nation building: Big lessons from successes and failures (pp. 131–140). CEPR Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cave, P. (2024). School curriculum reform in contemporary Japan: Competencies, subjects, and the ambiguities of PISA. Comparative Education, 60(2), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2023.2268808 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Chan, D. (2019). The “Seven S” approach to subject-based banding in schools. SMU Research Collection: School of Social Sciences (Paper 2848). https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2848 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheong, A. C. S. (1990). Streaming and learning behavior. National Institute of Education. [Google Scholar]
  10. Choo, L. S. (2008). Information communication technology in education: Singapore’s ICT masterplans 1997–2008. World Scientific. [Google Scholar]
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cubberley, E. P. (1919). Public education in the United States: A study and interpretation of American educational history. Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar]
  13. Çevik, Ö. C. (2023). “Education” as a right and the relationship between education and welfare. İnsan Hakları Yıllığı, 40, 115–149. [Google Scholar]
  14. Coşkun-Yaşar, G. (2025). Orientations to curriculum theories in teacher education (Thesis No. 926671) [Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center. [Google Scholar]
  15. Çobanoğlu, R., & Yıldırım, A. (2021). Curriculum development studies in Turkey: A historical analysis from the declaration of the republic to the present. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 19(2), 810–830. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.912329 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Dello-Iacovo, B. (2009). Curriculum reform and “quality education” in China: An overview. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.02.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Demirel, Ö. (2024). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Kuramdan uygulamaya (32. bs.). Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  18. Edwards, C. P. (2002). Three approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1), 2–14. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED464766.pdf [Google Scholar]
  19. Feng, D. (2006). Curriculum reform in China. Ministry of Education Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Goh, K. S. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978. https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=8f0a445f-bbd1-4e5c-8ebe-9461ea61f5de [Google Scholar]
  21. Gündüz, G. F. (2023). Program teorileri. In M. Güven & S. Aslan (Eds.), Çağdaş gelişmeler ışığında eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme (pp. 28–55). Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ho, E. S. (2009). Educational accountability in East Asia. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8(3), 201–212. [Google Scholar]
  23. Institute for International Cooperation & Japan International Cooperation Agency. (2004). The history of Japan’s educational development: What implications can be drawn for developing countries today. https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11778784.pdf [Google Scholar]
  24. Kariya, T. (2012). Japanese solutions to the problem of inequality in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(4), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.559388 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Kridel, C. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of curriculum studies. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  26. Levent, F., & Yazıcı, E. (2015). Examination of factors affecting success of Singapore education system. Journal of Educational Sciences, 39(39), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.15285/EBD.2014397401 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Li, J. (2001). Shanghai curriculum reform. East China Normal University Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Marulcu, I., & Akbıyık, C. (2014). Curriculum ideologies: Re-exploring prospective teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(5), 200–206. [Google Scholar]
  29. Menon, R. (2015). An economic history of Singapore: 1965–2015. Singapore Economic Review Conference. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (1966). Singapore government press statement. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/PressR19661007c.pdf [Google Scholar]
  31. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (1972). Education in Singapore. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (1998). Learning to think, thinking to learn. National Library Board. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2000). Information technology in Singapore schools: Past trends and future directions. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2004). Teach less, learn more. National Library Board. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2012). Mathematics education in Singapore. Indo MS-JME, 5(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2019). Learn for life – Remaking pathways: Greater flexibility with full subject-based banding. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/20190305-learn-for-life-remaking-pathways-greater-flexibility-with-full-subject-based-banding [Google Scholar]
  37. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2024). Full subject-based banding to replace streaming in Singapore schools. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2025). Impact of full subject-based banding on social mixing. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/20250304-impact-of-full-subject-based-banding-on-social-mixing [Google Scholar]
  39. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2001a). Basic education curriculum reform. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2001b). The general framework of the basic education curriculum reform (Trial). [Google Scholar]
  41. Ng, P. T. (2023). Learning in an era of uncertainty in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 24, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-023-09348-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Ninomiya, S. (2019). The impact of PISA and assessment policy in Japan. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1261795 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Null, W. (2011). Curriculum: From theory to practice. Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar]
  44. Okano, K., & Tsuchiya, M. (1999). Education in contemporary Japan: Inequality and diversity. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education (Vol. I). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results: What students know and can do(Vol. I). https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume II): Learning during—and from—disruption. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2016). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum. Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pratt, D. (1994). Curriculum planning: A handbook for professionals. Harcourt Brace. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sato, H. (2017). The structure of PISA penetration into education policy in Japan and Norway. In L. Volante (Ed.), The impact of the OECD on education worldwide (pp. 209–230). Emerald. [Google Scholar]
  53. Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  54. Shelton, P. J. (2004). Family and consumer science curriculum change (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California State University, Long Beach. [Google Scholar]
  55. Singleton, N. Y. (2013). Curriculum orientations of virtual teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas. [Google Scholar]
  56. Soh, K. (2014). Finland and Singapore in PISA 2009. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.787286 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. Tahirsylaj, A. (2017). Curriculum field in the making: Influences That Led to Social Efficiency as Dominant Curriculum Ideology in Progressive Era in the U.S. European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 4(1), 618–628. [Google Scholar]
  58. Takayama, K. (2008). The politics of international league tables. Comparative Education, 44(4), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060802481413 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Takayama, K. (2011). Re-examining the visibility of Japanese education. Comparative Education, 47(1), 449–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.561542 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Tan, C. (2019). PISA and education reform in Shanghai. Critical Studies in Education, 60(3), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1285336 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Tanaka, K., Nishioka, K., & Ishii, T. (2017). Curriculum, instruction and assessment in Japan: Beyond lesson study. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tasaki, N. (2017). The impact of OECD-PISA results on Japanese educational policy. European Journal of Education, 52(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12211 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Technical Education Department, Singapore. (1973). Technical education and industrial training in Singapore. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tonga, K., Tiitsaar, K., Leijen, Ä., & Pedaste, M. (2022). Professional development of teachers in PISA achiever countries. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 50(4), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2020.1863352 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Tucker, M. S. (Ed.). (2014). Chinese lessons: Shanghai’s rise to the top of the PISA league tables. National Center on Education and the Economy. [Google Scholar]
  66. Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (1996). The Chinese learner. Comparative Education Research Centre. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wong, S. T. (2018). History of education in Singapore. In Singapore’s new education system. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. [Google Scholar]
  68. Xu, Y. (2012). Education development in Shanghai. East China Normal University Press. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yamamoto, Y. (2015). Educational reform and active citizenship in Japan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2011.630853 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  70. Yang, W., & Fan, G. (2023). Delving into the development of Chinese students based on PISA scores. In D. Guo (Ed.), The frontier of education reform and development in China (pp. 107–128). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6355-1_7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  71. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin. [Google Scholar]
  72. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhou, Y., & Wang, D. (2016). A Chinese approach to learning? In C. P. Chou & J. Spangler (Eds.), Chinese education models in a global age (pp. 105–119). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0330-1_8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Meta
Vol. 1 (1)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 1 Issue 1

December 2025

All Manuscript

Curricular Studies & Perspectives

Copyright © 2026 Curricular Studies & Perspectives.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.