Sharing experience and collaborating among countries to improve science education are important. Science education worldwide has been shifting towards using scientific and engineering practices (SEP) as the background for science educational goals and pedagogical methods. Current literature provides several curriculum analysis frameworks based on taxonomies of cognitive demands or international tests. Still, those frameworks are either not intended for science curricula or limited in indicators and hence failed to capture a big picture of science curricula with rich details. This study utilizes SEP to analyze and compare learning performances in Taiwan's and Vietnam's national intended science curricula. Multiple case study research design and content analysis method are employed. The results present an overall snapshot of SEP in both curricula and a close look at each SEP and its components. Discussions on the appearance and the lack of SEPs and suggestions to improve the curricula under the perspectives of SEP would be helpful for researchers, curriculum developers, and teachers.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H.-l. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
Adelman, C. (2015). To imagine a verb: The language and syntax of learning outcomes statements. Occasional paper# 24. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students' questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193.
Alonzo, A. (2013). What can be learned from current large-scale assessment programs to inform assessment of the Next Generation Science Standards? Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment, K-12 Center at ETS,
Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. SensePublishers.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/resources/science-all-americans
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Becker, N. M., Rupp, C. A., & Brandriet, A. (2017). Engaging students in analyzing and interpreting data to construct mathematical models: an analysis of students’ reasoning in a method of initial rates task. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 798-810. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00205F
Bell, P., Bricker, L., Tzou, C., Lee, T., & Van Horne, K. (2012). Exploring the science framework: Engaging learners in scientific practices related to obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Science Scope, 36(3), 17.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. (1998). Text analysis. In Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (Vol. 613).
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320.
Chabalengula, V. M., & Mumba, F. (2017). Engineering design skills coverage in K-12 engineering program curriculum materials in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 39(16), 2209-2225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1367862
Chen, H.-L. S., & Huang, H.-Y. (2017). Advancing 21st century competencies in Taiwan.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101
Chiu, M.-H. (2007). Standards for science education in Taiwan. In Making it comparable: Standards in science education (pp. 303-346). Waxmann Verlag.
Chiu, M.-H., & Duit, R. (2011). Globalization: Science education from an international perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 553-566. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20427
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge.
Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2017). High school students' engagement in planning investigations: findings from a longitudinal study in Spain. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00185h
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. Teachers College Press.
DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 567-591. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20421
Duschl, R. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Planning and carrying out investigations: an entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS science and engineering practices. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-014-0012-6
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2012). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109-2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8 (Vol. 500). National Academies Press.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education. In Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (pp. 1-18). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_1
Evagorou, M., Erduran, S., & Mäntylä, T. (2015). The role of visual representations in scientific practices: from conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press.
Ford, M. (2006). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2-3), 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x030001001
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005). Design‐based science and real‐world problem‐solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165
Fulmer, G., Tanas, J., & Weiss, K. (2018). The challenges of alignment for the Next Generation Science Standards: FULMER et al. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 1076-1100. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21481
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (2003). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Taylor & Francis.
Hằng, N. V. T., Meijer, M. R., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2015). The implementation of a social constructivist approach in primary science education in Confucian heritage culture: the case of Vietnam. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 665-693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9634-8
Jin, H., Wei, X., Duan, P., Guo, Y., & Wang, W. (2016). Promoting cognitive and social aspects of inquiry through classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1154998
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Models and modelling in chemical education. In Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47-68). Springer.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lee, J., & Chiu, M.-H. (2019). NGSS 和 12 年國民基本教育中探究, 實作和建模的比較與分析. 科學教育月刊(421), 19-31.
Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., Jin, Q., Yoon, H.-G., & Matsubara, K. (2017). Revised Bloom’s taxonomy—the Swiss army knife in curriculum research. In East-asian primary science curricula (pp. 11-16). Springer.
Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., & Yoon, H.-G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: An analysis based on revised Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2193-2213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1072290
Lertdechapat, K., & Faikhamta, C. (2018). Science and engineering practices in a revised Thai science curriculum. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference for Science Educators and Teachers. Bangkok, Thailand,
Manz, E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2020). Rethinking the classroom science investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1148-1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21625
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
Ministry of Education (New Zealand). (2014). The New Zealand curriculum. MOE. https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum
Ministry of Education and Training (Vietnam). (2018). General education curriculum: Natural science. MOET.
National Academy for Educational Research. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education: Natural sciences. MOE.
National Research Council. (2006). Systems for state science assessment. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
National Research Council. (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core for ELA standards: A workshop summary. National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Appendix F – Science and engineering practices in the NGSS. In Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406919899220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I). Excellence and equity in education. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 science framework. In PISA 2018 sssessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Örnek, F. (2008). Models in science education: Applications of models in learning and teaching science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Osborne, J. F. (2019). Not “hands on” but “minds on”: A response to Furtak and Penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1280-1283. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21543
Packer, M. (2001). The problem of transfer, and the sociocultural critique of schooling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 493-514. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1004new_4
Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (Vol. Technology, Education, Connections (The TEC Series), pp. 1-23).
Qablan, A. (2018). Comparison of science and engineering concepts in Next Generation Science Standards with Jordan science standards. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/90267
Reiser, B. J. (2014). Designing coherent storylines aligned with NGSS for the K-12 classroom. National Science Education Leadership Association Meeting., Boston, MA.
Reiser, B. J., Berland, L. K., & Kenyon, L. (2012). Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. The Science Teacher, 79(4), 34.
Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 197-223. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310209
Rouse, J. (2007). Social practices and normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393106296542
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
Schwartz, M. (2006). For whom do we write the curriculum? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 449-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500296606
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x027002004
Sothayapetch, P., Lavonen, J., & Juuti, K. (2013). A comparative analysis of PISA scientific literacy framework in Finnish and Thai science curricula. Science Education International.
Stemler, S. (2001). An introduction to content analysis. ERIC Digest. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Stern, D. G. (2003). The practical turn. In S. P. Turner & P. A. Roth (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 185-206). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing “science practice” in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033-1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21191
Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. (2015). A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 659-685. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21208
Thi To Khuyen, N., Van Bien, N., Lin, P.-L., Lin, J., & Chang, C.-Y. (2020). Measuring teachers’ perceptions to sustain STEM education development. Sustainability, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041531
Tippett, C. (2009). Argumentation: The language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(1), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174713
Tsai, C.-Y. (2015). Improving students' PISA scientific competencies through online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.987712
Waddington, D., Nentwig, P., & Schanze, S. (2007). Making it comparable: Standards in science education. Waxmann Verlag.
Wei, B., & Ou, Y. (2018). A comparative analysis of junior high school science curriculum standards in Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao: based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(8), 1459-1474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9935-6
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11736/A%20brief%20introduction%20to%20CoP.pdf
Wilkerson, M. H., & Fenwick, M. (2017). Using mathematics and computational thinking. Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices, 181-204.
World Meteorological Organization. (2020). United in science 2020: A multi-organization high-level compilation of the latest climate science information.
Yarden, A. (2009). Reading scientific texts: Adapting primary literature for promoting scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 307-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9124-2
Yaz, Ö. V., & Kurnaz, M. A. (2020). Comparative analysis of the science teaching curricula in Turkey. SAGE Open, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899432
Yeh, Y.-F., Erduran, S., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2019). Investigating coherence about nature of science in science curriculum documents. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00053-1
Zheng, K.-H., & Lee, S.-T. (2018). When science literacy and reading literacy meet: Experimental study of science news reading strategy for high school students [當科學素養與閱讀素養相遇：高中學生科學新聞閱讀策略之實驗研究]. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(4), 157-192. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201812_63(4).0006