This study employs a dialectical comparative research approach grounded in Marxist ideological theory to systematically contrast the ideological construction logic of Chinese and foreign language curriculum standards. The research aims to reveal their differences and commonalities, providing a theoretical reference for language curriculum reform. Findings indicate that China’s language curriculum centers on a “collective development orientation”, cultivating core competencies in “cultural inheritance and understanding” to construct a trinity of content systems integrating “outstanding traditional Chinese culture, revolutionary culture, and advanced socialist culture”. It emphasizes “integrative permeation” of ideology achieving endogenous growth of values through linguistic practice. Western countries exhibit an “individualistic orientation”, prioritizing the cultivation of individual values through discussions of multicultural issues and critical thinking. Their ideological permeation carries implicit biases. These differences are fundamentally rooted in divergent social systems, cultural traditions, and historical missions. The study proposes that ideological mutual learning should adhere to the Marxist principle of “affirming the positive while negating the negative”, while upholding cultural sovereignty, critically assimilating foreign pedagogical approaches such as thematic teaching and the modern adaptation of local classics to construct a Chinese specific literacy education paradigm that organically unifies “value cultivation and language proficiency development”. By integrating cultural carriers with core values and innovating implementation pathways and evaluation mechanisms, this paradigm offers a localized solution for Chinese language curriculum reform while providing a cross-civilizational dialogue perspective for the ideological construction of global mother-tongue curricula.
References
[1] Erkılıç, T. A. (2021) A study on the effects of ideologies on education and management in the context of basic concepts of political philosophy. Osmangazi Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 259-285.
[2] Pham, T. K. (2025) Marxist philosophy and its influence on today’s world. Kalagatos: Revista de Filosofia, 22(1), 8.
[3] Bracho, C. A. (2019) Rejecting the universal to protect the local: Oaxacan teachers battle against global education reforms. Politics & Policy, 47(1), 152-177.
[4] Lin, K. (2025) Chinese ideology in the political education of students: How does ideology-based teaching impact students’ consciousness? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16(1), 4496-4515.
[5] Dilbaz, E., Erkiliç, T. A. (2021) The views and the effects of materialist philosophy and socialist ideology on curriculums and educational administration. Education Quarterly Reviews, 4(2), 547-561.
[6] Tian, X. (2024) Core socialist values and curriculum policy in China: a study of the curriculum standard for Chinese language. European Journal of Education, 59(2), e12633.
[7] Kang, K. D. (2018) Language and ideology: althusser’s theory of ideology. Language Sciences, 70, 68-81.
[8] Coskun Yasar, G., Aslan, B. (2021) Curriculum theory: a review study. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 11(2), 237-260.
[9] Aslan, S., Aybek, B. (2024) Development of critical-thinking skills rubric within the scope of multicultural education. Educational Process: International Journal, 13(3), 139158.
[10] Moea, K. S. (2022) The curriculum ideology of the lesotho general certificate of secondary education literature in English. American Journal of Arts and Human Science, 1(4), 1-9.
Share and Cite
Ding, B.(2025) Ideological Differences and Mutual Learning in Chinese and International Language Curriculum Standards: A Marxist Comparative Analysis. Global Education Bulletin, 2(3), 11-21.