Study on the Curriculum to Nurture Competencies
Report 2 of the Study on the Curriculum to Nurture Competencies
Curriculum and Learning Activities of Other Countries

1. Purpose and summary of the research studies(1) Purpose of the research studies
The purpose of this study is to further academically refine and restructure the “Basic
Research on Curriculum Organization”, which was carried out until FY2013, and toconduct a comprehensive, empirical study of the educational goals and content, learningand teaching methods and assessments, with a particular focus this year on curricula andlearning activities. This report summarizes the status of the promotion andimplementation of learning activities to nurture the respective competencies in othercountries out of the research results of the “Study on the Curriculum to Nurture
Competencies – a comprehensive study of the goals, content, teaching methods andassessments” (FY2014 - FY2016).
The purpose of the research studies is as follows.
(i) To identify what kind of competencies are being nurtured in the curriculum ofother countries, how the learning and teaching methods (or learning activities) tonurture these competencies and such assessments are described in the curriculum,
and what kind of support is being provided by the national or local government tobe able to implement these learning activities to nurture the competencies inschools.
(ii) To provide examples of specific teaching practices for the learning activities tonurture competencies.
(2) Research framework
In the research studies, for the abovementioned purpose, the research was carried out
through international research teams (in charge of the curriculum, science, and socialstudies) being assembled for the project’s research and a research framework composedof Institute members and external members being organized.
The international research team (in charge of the curriculum). The country given inparentheses () is the country for which the member was responsible.
Akira Ninomiya, President, Hijiyama University (supervisor)
Maiko Aoki, Associate Professor, Hokkaido University (Australia)

Asahiro Arai, Professor, Josai University (United Kingdom)
Shuichi Uehara, Associate Professor, Utsunomiya University (France)
Takahiro Endo, University of Fukui, Associate Professor (United States)
Hisashi Kawai, Adjunct Fellow, National Institute for Educational Policy Research
Shinji Sakano, Professor, Tamagawa University (United Kingdom)
Tomoko Shimomura, Associate Professor, Mie University (Canada)
Michiyo Fukumoto, Associate Professor, Tokyo Gakugei University (New Zealand)
Asato Matsumoto, Specialist, Overseas Education Research Unit, Lifelong Learning
Policy Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (SouthKorea)
Aya Watanabe, Associate Professor, Tsuda College (Finland)Tomoaki Matsuo, Senior Researcher, National Institute for Educational Policy Research(Singapore, head of the international team)Mayumi Nishino, Senior Researcher, National Institute for Educational Policy Research(Singapore and general coordinator)
International research team (in charge of science). The country given in parentheses () isthe country for which the member was responsible.
Tetsuo Isozaki, Professor, Hiroshima University (supervisor, UK, France)
Susumu Nozoe, Associate Professor, University of Miyazaki (England)
Toshihide Hirano, Professor, Aichi University of Education (United States)
Kazumasa Takahashi, Lecturer, Hokkaido University of Education (United States)
Mitsuhiro Terada, Professor, Gifu Shotoku Gakuen University (Germany)
Yusuke Endo, Assistant Professor, Aichi University of Education (Germany)
Kinya Shimizu, Professor, Hiroshima University (Canada)
Toshinobu Hatanaka, Associate Professor, Toho University (Canada)
Shuichi Yamashita, Professor, Chiba University (Singapore)
Ryugo Oshima Assistant Professor, Chiba University (Singapore)
Jiwon Lee, Research Professor, Korea National University of Education (South Korea)
Minami Kakumu, Graduate Student, Hiroshima University (France)
Kenichi Goto, Senior Researcher, National Institute for Educational Policy Research(Germany and South Korea)
Kenji Matsubara, Senior Researcher, National Institute for Educational Policy Research(Australia and general coordinator)

International research team (in charge of social science). The country given in parentheses() is the country for which the member was responsible.
Akiko Utsunomiya, Associate Professor, Saga University (Germany)Masahiro Nii, Senior Researcher, National Institute for Educational Policy Research(United Kingdom, USA and overall organization)(3) Summary of the research
The Basic Research Department of the Curriculum Research Center was chiefly
responsible for conducting continuous research on the trends relating to the curriculum
criteria of other countries. In the “Basic Research on Curriculum Organization” (FY 20112013), which was the predecessor to the current research, research was conducted on thecurriculum of other countries focusing on the development of competencies (“Report 6The Curriculum and Competencies of Other Countries,” (2013)).
Based on previous findings, the research for this project focused on the fact that arecommendation had been made by the Special Study Group on Curriculum Planning of
the Central Council for Education on improving learning activities towards developing
competencies, and a study was conducted focusing on ways of setting out the learningand teaching methods, and learning activities in the curriculum.
The results of this research were published in September 2015 in the form of “TheCurriculum and Learning Activities of Other Countries” as project research materials. For
the sake of expediency and convenience, these materials were compiled in the form oflists and country comparison tables giving the current situation of each country. This
report describes and analyzes in further detail the information given in the researchmaterials, including the situation which serves as the background to the future directionof education reform and the features of the learning activities.
The major points of the survey in the research are as follows.
1. The direction of education reform
2. Characteristics and recent trends in the curriculum
3. Connections between the competencies and the learning content
4. Descriptions of the learning and teaching methods, and learning activities
5. The expansion of learning activities to nurture competencies
6. Assessments of learning
7. Organization, assessments and improvements of the curriculum
Based on the abovementioned survey, the efforts of each country thought to beparticularly interesting when compared to Japan were listed for ease of reference under“8. Distinctive features”.
Ten countries were selected for the survey from the perspective of fully utilizing theaccumulated research and for the purpose of continuity. Specifically there were four
European countries: the United Kingdom (England), Finland, France and Germany; twoNorth American countries: Canada and the United States; two countries in the Oceania
region: Australia and New Zealand; and two Asian countries: Singapore and South Korea.
In addition, in the country comparison table which was provided beforehand as partof the research materials, along with the characteristics of the curriculum in general,
actual lesson examples were attached so as to be able to provide a concrete image of thelearning activities to nurture competencies, which are being developed based on thecurriculum. The collection and analysis of the lesson samples were limited to the areas ofscience and social education where existing data was available owing to time and budget
constraints. (Where it was difficult to obtain materials on the lesson, only the curriculum
was indicated). Moreover, with regard to the science curriculum and learning activities,
the details of the content shown in the table of this report were indicated in the form of“Report 3 The Curriculum and Learning Activities of Other Countries (Science Edition)”(March 2016).
The characteristic feature of this study is that it carried out a comparative study of thecurricula focusing on the learning activities themselves. Conventionally, the focus of thestudies of other countries tends to be mainly on introducing curriculum trends, innovative
learning and teaching methods, and teaching practices, but this study conducts acomparative analysis focusing on descriptions of learning and teaching methods in the
curriculum, and the measures for the dissemination and promotion of the learning
activities being implemented by the national and local governments. The results of thestudy are expected to be used in the future as reference material when considering in theJapanese curriculum how to proceed with improving the learning activities to nurturecompetencies in schools.
2. Summary of the research results
The research results of the curriculum and learning activities of other countries up
until the end of FY2015 are as indicated below.
(1) The direction of education reform
The direction indicated by all of the surveyed countries was to develop a curriculum
to nurture the competencies by incorporating the desired competencies in the educational
goals, and by indicating cross-curricular competencies. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom,which has thus far been proactively implementing a curriculum to nurture skills andcompetencies, identified the basic knowledge that should be taught, in particular, in theareas of English, mathematics and science.
(2) Characteristics of the curriculum and recent trends- In the surveyed countries, there were countries and states that set out the curriculum
criteria in the form of the National Curriculum or the Courses of Study.
- The desired competencies were mainly classified into 5 to 7 groups as key competencies,or general capabilities. Although the language used differed, competencies relating tonumeracy (mathematical skills) and language skills were included and emphasized as
desired competencies by many of the countries.
- Other than Australia (each state) and New Zealand which had in the past indicatedcurriculum criteria focusing on competencies, France, Finland, Singapore, and South
Korea had carried out revisions from the perspective of ways to externalize thecompetencies indicated in the educational goals and cross-curricular competencies inthe subjects, and studying what competencies needed to be nurtured independently ineach subject.
(3) Connections between the competencies and learning content
The association between the competencies or skills and learning content of therespective subjects saw independent ingenuity in each of the countries. The United
Kingdom, France, Finland, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore described how thedesired competencies should be nurtured in each subject (in some countries, at each gradelevel), and indicated by subject what competencies should be nurtured.
(4) Methods of describing learning and teaching methods, and learning activities- The United Kingdom, United States and Canada do not give illustrations of learning
activities through national or state criteria. In Germany, the handling differs dependingon the state. In other countries (or states), illustrations were given of the learning
activities or recommended learning activities were indicated.
- Of the countries which did not give examples of learning activities in the curriculum
criteria, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the organization administering theGCSE exams taken at the age of 16, provided examples of learning activities
corresponding to the exams for each subject on the Internet. In Canada, the provincial
Departments of Education provide examples of learning activities online.
- As school support, there are some countries which have enhanced the training provided

by the country or the state and there are some countries which leave this to universities
or private organizations. In many countries, information was provided throughwebsites.
(5) Expansion of learning activities to nurture competencies- Most of the countries had in common a tendency towards emphasizing proactive
inquiry-based learning and collaborative learning.
- Active learning and proactive learning by learners was encouraged and recommended
through participation-based and inquiry-based learning.
(6) Assessments of learning- In each country, the country (or state) indicated a framework for assessments and criteria
which needed to be met.
- For assessments of competencies, each country utilizes various methods such asformative assessments and performance assessments.
(7) Organization, assessment and improvement of the curriculum- The status of implementation of measures for organization, assessment andimprovement of the curriculum in each school differed by the country or localgovernment.
- The countries promoting curriculum development led by the schools required reports on
the status of implementation, self-evaluations by the schools, and carried out
assessments of the report and self-evaluations.
- As seen in the United Kingdom, there are some countries where an independent agency
implements the school assessments.