framing paper consultation report: the sciences · framing paper consultation report: the sciences...

Framing Paper Consultation Report: The Sciences

May 2009

Framing Paper Consultation Report: The Sciences 2Framing Paper Consultation Report: Science 2

COPYRIGHT

© Commonwealth of Australia 2009

This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. All other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to:

Commonwealth Copyright AdministrationCopyright Law BranchAttorney-General’s DepartmentRobert Garran OfficesNational CircuitBarton ACT 2600Fax: 02 6250 5989

or submitted via the copyright request form on the website http://www.ag.gov.au/cca.

Framing Paper Consultation Report: The Sciences 3

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 3

2. Consultation 3

3. Feedback affirming the directions in the Sciences Framing Paper 5

4. Feedback requiring further examination 7

5. Addressing feedback requiring further examination 13

6. Summary of submissions 20

7. Appendix: What the community said in response to NCB questions 21


1. Introduction

The National Curriculum Board has been charged with developing a single, world-class national curriculum for all Australian students from kindergarten to Year 12, starting with the key learning areas of English, mathematics, the sciences and history.

On 20 November 2008, the National Curriculum Board released for public consultation the set of curriculum framing papers for English, mathematics, the sciences and history. The consultation period officially closed on 28 February 2008. The purpose of the consultation was to obtain feedback from stakeholders that would inform the rewriting of the framing papers to the point where they would be foundational documents for writing the national curriculum.

The framing papers were developed from advice obtained through an extensive consultation process involving national forums, guidance from individual experts and focus groups, input from teachers and academics, and direct feedback through the Board’s website.

This report provides a brief description of the consultation process, the process of data analysis, and a summary of the analysis of all feedback received. The summary outlines affirmations for the directions in the framing papers and matters requiring further examination.

The summary is representative of more than 1100 responses, 270 of which were in relation to the sciences Framing Paper. Feedback was received in two forms – via completion of surveys (most through online lodgement) responding to questions asked by the Board, and via formal submissions lodged either electronically or by mail. It represents the contributions of education authorities, professional education associations, individual educators, business and industry, community groups and individuals. The report also provides tabulated data indicating the spread of responses across the many stakeholder groups.

The Board acknowledges with appreciation the contributions of all respondents to the consultation. Many written submissions were extraordinarily detailed, while others provided briefer more indicative input, clearly waiting to contribute further as the curriculum writing process gets under way.

2. Consultation

Process

The National Curriculum Board has committed to an open curriculum development process with substantial consultation with the profession and the public. Stakeholder groups include government, education authorities (national, state and territory, government, Catholic and Independent, and local school authorities where such bodies exist), parent bodies, professional educational associations, academics, business and industry groups, wider community groups and interested individuals from the wider community.

The Board’s primary consultation instrument was a survey seeking stakeholder responses to questions posed by the Board in relation to each framing paper. The survey instrument was placed on the Board’s website to permit online completion and lodgement. Respondents for whom this was not suitable chose to either mail, email (to the Board’s feedback box ([email protected]) or fax the survey responses in to the Board.

Many stakeholders chose to respond by preparing formal submissions. These were received by the Board through mail, email or fax.

All online survey responses and submissions through the Board’s electronic feedback mailbox triggered an immediate electronic message of acknowledgment and appreciation for the contribution. All other submissions were responded to individually by staff of the Office of the Board.

Section 5 of this report contains a summary of framing paper survey responses and submissions by respondent group.


The consultation period officially closed on 28 February 2009. At this point in time, the online survey environment was closed. However, significant numbers of responses continued to flow in after that date, and were being entered into the data base as late as the end of March. During March, a gap analysis of major stakeholders was prepared, and direct contact was made with those stakeholders, to ensure that submissions were still forthcoming and would be taken into account in the data analysis process.

In addition to this formal consultation process, a range of consultation forums were held to ensure that specific concerns also within the Board’s curriculum development responsibilities are met. These include:

• equityanddiversity• futures-orientation• stagesofschooling• continuaforliteracy,numeracyandICT• needsofIndigenouschildrenandincorporationofIndigenousperspectives• Asia-literacyand• sustainability.

Data Analysis

Upon receipt, every submission and survey response was formally recorded. Those not received through the online process were either scanned (in the case of submissions) or entered manually into the database. A single record of the details of all responses was updated as they were received and weekly summary reports prepared.

Every submission was read by relevant Board staff, and a summary of significant points in each submission was noted for consideration in the collation and analysis of the data. At the same time, the full text of all submissions was recorded for analysis.

The outcomes of the data analysis have been documented in two main forms – feedback that affirms the directions (broad and specific) of the individual framing papers, and feedback that indicates matters that require further examination. In the latter case, additional processes have been put in place to conduct that further examination.

From the data analysis, major affirmations and major areas for examination have been identified in the report. These have been identified both by the strength and frequency of their presence in the responses. Minority insights from individuals or groups of respondents were respectfully taken into account but may not necessarily appear in the report. This does not indicate a rejection of their value as contributions, but recognition of the major directions and concerns emanating from the larger body of data.


3. Feedback affirming the directions in the Sciences Framing Paper

The quantitative data, provided in the table below, indicates a strong level of support for the Sciences framing paper as a whole.

Question Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Question 2: To what extent do you agree with the aims of the proposed national science curriculum?

5% 9% 43% 43%

Question 4: To what extent do you agree with the definitions and applications of the terms used in this paper?

5% 15% 48% 32%

Question 7: This paper outlines three key elements: Science understanding, Science inquiry skills, and Science as a human endeavour. To what extent do you agree with these elements?

3% 9% 45% 43%

Question 9: The proposed structure identifies the curriculum focus, sources of science understanding and the relevant big ideas of science for each stage of schooling. To what extent do you agree with using these headings as organisers for the curriculum?

8% 24% 47% 21%

Question 11: To what extent do you agree with this approach to organising the science content for Stage 1?

9% 9% 55% 27%

Question 13: To what extent do you agree with the approach to organising the science content for Stage 2?

6% 15% 55% 24%

Question 15: To what extent do you agree with the approach to organising the science content for Stage 3?

4% 20% 47% 29%

Question 19: This section outlines approaches to pedagogy as they apply to the content of a national science curriculum. To what extent do you agree?

4% 8% 45% 43%

Question 21: This section outlines approaches to assessment as they apply to the content of a national science curriculum. To what extent do you agree?

2% 11% 53% 34%

Particular areas of support have been noted below about each aspect of the framing paper.

• Therewaswidesupportforthebroadscopeanddirectionoftheframingpaper.

• Therewassupportfortheuseof‘bigideas’tohelpframethecurriculumwiththesuggestionthattheseneed to be linked from stage to stage to support a common use of language, and to clearly link to the listed concepts and topics proposed for study.

• Therewasstrongsupport for the threeelementsonwhich thecurriculumshouldbebased (scienceunderstanding, science inquiry skills and science as a human endeavour).

• Many respondents supported the paper’s assertion that science is a rapidly increasing body ofknowledge and there is a need to avoid overloading the curriculum.


• Most respondents supported the inclusionanduseofcontemporarycontexts towhichstudentscanrelate. It was also considered that:

• Theuseofcontemporarycontextsshouldbeusedacrossthestagesofschooling,notonlyinStage3 where the idea is currently most strongly articulated.

• Particular examples of contemporary contexts should remain as suggestions, rather thanmandated.

• Contexts,includingcontemporarycontexts,shouldnotberestrictedto‘whatisinstudents’backyards’but should include local, state, national and international scenarios to achieve relevance.

• Therewasgeneralsupportforthestatementsaboutpedagogyandassessmentintheframingpaper.

• Inrelationtothestatementthatthereneedstobemoreemphasisonstudentengagementandinquiryand less on teacher transmission, it was considered that:

• Thecurriculumshouldnotdictateanyparticularpedagogy. • Avarietyofeffectivepedagogiesneedtobeemployedtoensurethatscienceeducationreflects

accurate scientific thought and practice with schools able to select approaches that suit their ethos, values or philosophy.

• The reference to the ‘backwards design process’ (Wiggins and McTighe: 2005) was supported.Respondents suggested that:

• Greateremphasiscouldbeincludedaboutthevariouspurposesofassessmentsuchasassessmentfor learning (diagnostic assessment), assessment as learning (formative assessment) and assessment of learning (summative assessment).

• Thepaperneedstostatetheimportanceofassessingallthreeelementsspecifiedinthestructureofthe curriculum.


4. Feedback requiring further examination

The following matters have been identified as areas requiring further examination:

1.0 Representation and discussion of science, including the Introduction and the aims for learning about science.

1.1 The definition of science needs to be broadened to recognise that science is about asking interesting questions about the world, not only about answering questions about the natural world. Respondents argued that the frequent use of the terms ‘natural world’and‘naturalphenomena’wereambiguousandproblematicandcouldbeinterpretedasprecluding relevance to the contemporary designed world.

1.2 There was concern that the science worldview, the beliefs that underpin the work of scientists, was not recognised and it was considered that this could be reflected in the science inquiry skills element.

1.3 Thespecificationofthetimeperiod,‘thepasttwohundredyears’,intheIntroductionwasregarded to have the potential to be offensive to Indigenous Australians who have used inquiry processes over many thousands of years. The identification of specific scientists in the introduction was questioned for the lack of female examples and the inclusion of particular Nobel Laureates was considered to have the potential to diminish the importance andvalueofcontributionsmadebyotherscientists.While theemphasisonAustralianscience was appreciated, there was also thought that the global perspective and global citizenship were significant inclusions to be made.

1.4 Respondents considered that economic and political imperatives for learning about science dominated discussion of the introduction and the aims, and took precedence over students’ entitlement to learn about science in order to develop their capacity to become scientifically literate, active citizens. The dominant economic and political arguments were seentoconflictwiththeframingpaper’sassertionthatscienceshouldembodya‘sciencefor life’ approach.

1.5 Respondents queried the singular reference to the UK Ofsted report (2008) recommending a commitment to science inquiry. There were calls for the example to be deleted or for it to be accompanied by further research and /or by inclusion of Australian examples, for example research into the Primary Connections: linking science with literacy program.

1.6 There were different views about the inclusion, or absence, of the affective domain including values in the sciences. Some respondents argued that the paper was deficient in its lack of addressing the affective domain, whilst others considered too much emphasis on active citizenship and social outcomes to the detriment of focussed discussion of scientific knowledge and skills. There were comments that the broad focus of the curriculum needed tobe‘scienceforcitizenship’andmuchlessabout‘futurescientists’.

1.7 The absence of reference to sustainability/environmental science was noted and considered that due to its importance in contemporary science, it should be named explicitly as a key driver in the context of science education.

1.8 Respondents called for the aims of learning to be explicitly stated as aims with supporting objectives – currently seen as a mix of the two. Respondents also called for the issue of ethics and the need for ethical decision making to be included within the aims section. Concern was noted about the absence of clear recognition and articulation about the need in science education to harness and build on students’ interest and enthusiasm.


1.9 There was support for the paper’s assertion that while school science should prepare students for active citizenship, it should also provide a foundation for more specific pathways. There was discussion relating to the adequacy of the aims in dealing with the range of scientific knowledge required for a technological society and a call for the broad profile of technological capability required for the 21st century to be recognised and explained.

2.0 Terms used in the paper, particularly science capabilities.

2.1 Much comment was made about the use of the term science capabilities as a replacement for the term scientific literacy/ies:

2.1.1 The majority of respondents who commented on this issue advocated for the term scientific literacy/ies to be used rather than the term science capabilities due to its currency of use and meaning including in the science community, its international understanding and use and the work already done with Australian education systems and teachers to develop understanding and use of the term.

2.1.2 Most respondents considered that the term science capabilities was not well understood and that the term should not be considered as a direct substitute for scientific literacy which was considered to have broader intent than the term science capabilities as defined in the framing paper.

2.1.3 The paper’s assertion that the term scientific literacy sometimes caused confusion in the broader community, and that this was a valid reason for creating a new term, was challenged by many respondents including significant educational agencies and professional associations and considered unacceptable.

2.1.4 It was considered that a departure from the term scientific literacy will damage the progress and momentum occurring in the teaching of science in primary schools, including the progress associated with Primary Connections.

2.2 Respondents considered that broader, deeper definitions of the term technology should be provided:

2.2.1 The definition needs to contain a clear description of technology, rather than just stating its benefits.

2.2.2 It was considered that the bidirectional dependence of science and technology should be explicitly stated, especially considering the dependence of modern technologies on advances in science complemented by advances in science which have occurred because of advances in technology.

2.2.3 Use should be specific and consistent, for example the alternating use of the terms ’technology’ and ‘technologies’ throughout the document mightcause confusion for teachers. In some jurisdictions, the term ‘technologies’refer to specific technological areas such as Information and Communication Technologies, (ICTs). Insomejurisdictions, ‘technology’ isanabridgedtermfor technology education which involves the processes of designing and producing in the contexts of products, information and communication, and the built environment.

2.2.4 Therewascallfortheterm‘engineering’tobeincludedasadiscretestand-alone term considering it is more appropriate than the term ‘technology’,and that is should be understood alongside, and in contrast to, science and technology.


2.3 Respondents considered that broader, deeper definition of the term contemporary science should be provided:

2.3.1 The definition should identify what is considered contemporary science, for example‘newandemergingscientificresearch’and/orissuesofcontemporaryrelevance.

2.4 There was call for references to science and scientists to be broadened to increase inclusivity, for example including reference to ‘study of science based disciplines’,rather than just ‘science’ and including references to ‘future scientists, engineers andtechnologists’.

3.0 Determining and representing the nature of the big ideas.

3.1 Whiletherewassupportfortheuseofbigideastoframethecurriculum,therewasadeal of discussion about what constituted these big ideas. There were comments that the ‘relevantbigideasofscience’werenotreallythebigideasofscience,rathertheywereamixof ‘big ideas for learning science’, ’scienceprocesses’and ‘somebig ideasofscience’.

Respondentsconsidereditimportantthatthe‘big’(orunifying)ideasbeseparatedfromscience processes and be well described, including identifying what is unique to science about the ideas. It will also be important for a clear determination about how the big ideas are intended to be used to be made to ensure alignment between the learning focus, the learning activities and assessment.

3.2 Many respondents considered the relevant big ideas need to be included across the K-12 curriculum with obvious links between the stages of schooling to show how the ideas are being developed. Further critical analysis of the proposed structure for the K-12 science curriculum is needed.

3.3 Therewascallfortheimplicationsresultingfromomitting‘contentstrands’orotherexplicitorganising frameworks of science concepts to be reconsidered, including the recognition of consequences for teacher professional learning that will result from the use of a new model.

3.4 The proposed structure (Table 1, p. 6) was widely misinterpreted. Respondents considered the table to be ‘too busy’ with the key elements lacking inclusion/emphasis and theinclusion of ‘source of interesting questions’ queried.A clear articulation of the threeelements in the proposed structure of the curriculum was not seen to be provided in Table 1, nor in the elaborations of each stage provided in the latter part of the framing paper.

3.5 Respondents queried the introduction of the headings in Table 1 which introduced a different set of organisers and which had not been described prior to their appearance in thesectiontitled‘Structureofthecurriculum’.

4.0 Embedding the three elements across the curriculum.

4.1 While therewassupport for the threeelementsused tostructure thecurriculum,manyrespondents called for all three to be clearly articulated in each of the stages.

4.2 Respondents considered that science inquiry skills should be included in the curriculum in a systematic way, noting that it is important that development of skills across the K-12 curriculum is clearly articulated (progression is not about an ongoing introduction of more skills but the sophistication of skills changes as students develop).

It was considered important that the science inquiry skills would align with the National Scientific Literacy Progress Map (MCEETYA, 2006).


4.3 Science as a human endeavour was seen as an integral element to enable students to realise the importance of people in science inquiry and as a way to authenticate science and make it relevant to students’ lives.

It was recommended that the element ‘science as a human endeavour’ be explicitlyaddressed in the structure, organisation and content for each stage, rather than embedding it (or expecting teachers to) within the development of conceptual understanding.

5.0 Representation of the science curriculum across the stages of schooling.

5.1 Respondentscalledfor‘topicsandmajorconcepts’withinthedescriptionsforeachstageto be separated and to be clearly linked to the relevant big ideas. There was also the suggestionthattheterm‘topic’couldbereplacedwith‘areaforinvestigation’.

5.2 Furtherdiscussionabouttheuseoftheterm‘topic’notedthattheconceptualunderstandingto be developed through a topic needed clear description to support deep conceptual development. It was also noted that topics themselves were not year level/age specific but that the conceptual understanding underpinning the topic needs describing.

5.3 In relation to primary schooling, there was some thought that ‘considerations’ notedin the paper were not specifically relevant for primary school. In particular the section discussing ‘selection of science content’ was seen to focus on the issue of reformingsecondary education without taking into account the need to establish a clear and explicit sciencecurriculumforprimaryschools.Whilethesectiondiscussing‘relevanceofsciencelearning’ was supported, the problem identified for primary schools was more to do with the absence of science being taught rather than with the relevance of what is being taught.

5.4 The issue of overlap into a geography curriculum was flagged as needing to be considered as part of the next stage of science curriculum design. Aspects such as weather, water and the management of water, climate change and earth sciences (plate tectonics) have traditionally been part of the geography learning area.

5.5 Stage 1: While respondents considered the inclusion of play and emphasis onobservational skills was important, it was also suggested that this stage lacked relevant and appropriate content that could be explored and observed. The approach in general was supported, particularly moving from the immediate environment to broader understandings.

The‘relevantbigideasofscience’wereseentobeskillsratherthan‘bigideas’withcallsfor greater scope in content to be recommended for this stage.

5.6 Stage 2: It was considered that Stage 2 contained too many topics and major concepts (too much content). There was a suggestion that the content that is listed could be clustered together to illustrate major concepts, reducing the amount of content.

It was suggested that Stage 1 and Stage 2 could include a further guide about what concepts (content and topics) should be introduced when and in what sequence.

5.7 Stage 3: Many respondents called for consistent language use across the stages of schooling, particularly in Stage 3 and Stage 4 (while maintaining an integrated approach to the study of science in Stage 3). The use of terms physical sciences, biological sciences and earth and space science in Stage 3 being followed by Stage 4 terms physics, chemistry and biology was seen as disjointed. Continuity of language was seen as important to aiding students to identify their interests and strengths.

Respondents sought the inclusion of more specific advice about opportunities for


differentiating the curriculum in the latter half of Stage 3.

5.8 Stage 4: Respondents considered that the three interrelated elements used to structure the curriculum provided an effective basis for consistent application throughout the proposed curriculum. It was suggested that the absence of discussion relating to elements of science inquiry skills and science as a human endeavour in Stage 4 implies, falsely, that these are no longer as important as the content (science understanding).

5.9 Some respondents sought clarity on whether all students will be expected to study the sciences in Stage 4.

5.10 Stage 4 (senior secondary courses): The inclusion of environmental science as a senior secondary course was not supported with the majority of respondents considering that earth and environmental sciences is a preferable course for inclusion in the national curriculum. The inclusion of earth sciences across the stages of learning and across all senior secondary courses was also raised, as was the issue of the potential for environmental science to overlap significantly with geography. It was considered that an earth and environmental science course could be considered as an interdisciplinary course.

5.11 While therewassomesupport foranadditional, interdisciplinarycourse, respondentsflagged issues of equity (for example, making sure the course is not seen as less rigorous or for less able students which would diminish its value) and for such a course to be developed in consultation with industry to ensure currency of content, scientific practice anddirection.Theimportanceofthe‘powerofperception’indrivingchoiceandtake-upof courses was raised as an matter for consideration in relation to such a course.

5.12 There was strong support for existing courses across the states (for example, Human Biology, Agricultural Science and Psychology) to be retained as specialised courses. It was suggested that a rigorous framework be developed through which other, more specialisedcourse,couldbe‘accredited’.

6.0 The inclusion of literacy and numeracy in the context of learning of, and about, science.

6.1 Respondents considered that literacy and numeracy were key components of science curriculum and that they needed to be dealt with explicitly in the science curriculum.

6.2 It was considered that literacy should not just be referenced as a cross-curriculum skill but rather as a foundational skill needed to access the discipline of science.

6.3 Respondents noted that links with literacy and numeracy were important across the years of schooling, with particular emphasis given to the importance and value of science in the primary school setting as a context and opportunity for integration with other learning areas especially literacy and numeracy.

7.0 The representation and inclusion of technology.

7.1 In addition to calls for the definition of technology in the defined terms of the paper to be reviewed, there were calls for the inclusion of technology and/or technological applications to be included in the curriculum structure at all stages.

8.0 The representation and inclusion of Indigenous Australian perspectives in teaching and learning science.

8.1 It was considered that the framing paper needed to acknowledge Indigenous Australian knowledge and learning systems as distinct entities with unique value and integrity, and with the ability to inform Australian responses to key contemporary challenges such as land management and climate change.


8.2 There was also comment that the framing paper did not include reference to the issue of Indigenous student learning in science including the achievement gaps apparent between non-Indigenous and Indigenous students in national and international assessments, nor to ways this gap could be addressed.

Other considerations

The following considerations have been identified related to implementation. These are outside the remit of the Board but are included for noting.

• Implicationsofmajorsystemchange–thelevelofpreparednessofteacherstomanagetheap-proach proposed in the framing paper to move from a transmission model teaching of discipline abstractions to a model with a greater emphasis on student engagement and inquiry was raised as a risk for the successful implementation of the national curriculum for the sciences. The impor-tance of recognising the potential impact and implications of proposed changes and planning for the professional development of science teachers was considered integral to the success of the project.

• Teachertraining(pre-serviceandin-service)–availabilityofqualifiedteachersofscience;teach-ers’understandingofscienceconcepts(especiallyforprimaryteachers);ongoingprofessionaldevelopmentincludingmaintainingcurrencywithchangingknowledgeandemergingcontexts;support for teachers teachingoutside theirareaof expertise;pedagogical tools toadjust toinquiry focussed approach.

• Recommendedteachingtime–somerespondentscalledfortheframingpaperforthesciencecurriculum to recommend, if not mandate, sufficient and minimum time allocations to the teach-ing of science at various stages of schooling.

• Availableresources–supportmaterials;qualityresources(egtexts);specialistteachersinpri-mary school setting; resourcing of science classroomsand laboratorieswith equipment andtechnical staff.

Respondents flagged the Australian Government funded, Australian Academy of Science man-aged program Primary Connections: linking science with literacy as an example of an exem-plary model for professional learning and curriculum resources in the primary school setting from which important learning could be taken.

• Incorporationofdigitaltechnologiestosupportlearningandassessment.

• Timingof,andsupportfor,implementation.


5. Addressing feedback requiring further examination

The table that follows identifies the actions that have or will take place in response to the key issues that have emerged from the consultation feedback.

No Item Source Action for consideration

1 Representation and discussion of science, including the Introduction and the aims for learning about science

Academics

Business & industry stakeholders

Education authorities

Parents

Principals

Professional associations – principals

Professional associations – teachers (state)

Professional associations – teachers (national)

Teachers

Union

Action 1:

Advice was sought from an expert consultation group on key issues raised through the consultation feedback. Advice and direction was provided for:

• revisionstothetextinthesectionIntroduction (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 1.7)

• revisionstothetextinthesectionAims(1.8,1.9)

Action 2:

Specific revisions have been made as follows:

• revisionsmadetotheIntroduction(1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4, 1.5, 1.6 1.7)

• revisionstotextmadeinthesectionAims (1.1, 1.9)

Action 3:

Specific instructions will be provided to the Sciences advisory panel and curriculum writers on the following matters:

• articulatinganddescribingthesupportingobjectives for learning science within the aims for the science curriculum as a whole (1.8)



2 Terms used in the paper, particularly science capabilities

Academics



Principals

Professional association – principals



Teachers

Union

Action 1:


• theuseoftheterms‘sciencecapabilities’ and‘scientificliteracy/ies’(2.1)

• reviseddefinitionsanduseoftheterms‘technology’and‘contemporaryscience’ (2.2, 2.3, 2.4)

Action 2:


• therevisedversionofthepaperdoesnotdefineoruseeitherterm‘sciencecapabilities’and‘scientificliteracy/ies’ (2.1)

• revisionstothedefinitionof‘technology’and‘contemporaryscience’madeinrevisedSciencesFraming Paper (2.2, 2.3, 2.4)

Action 3:


• incorporatingandexemplifyingtheuseofcontemporary contexts for learning science (2.2, 2.3, 2.4)



3 Determining and representing the nature of the big ideas

Academics



Principals




Teachers

Union

Action 1:


• developmentofarefinedcurriculumdesignfor K-12 that represents the big ideas in a developmentally appropriate manner embedded within contemporary contexts for learning (3.1)

• representingthenatureofthebigideasincludingdemonstrating development and links across the K-12 curriculum for science, including the three elements of the curriculum (3.2, 3.4, 3.5)

Action 2:


• proposedstructure(Table1,p.6)removedfromframing paper (3.4, 3.5)

• revisiontotheuseoftheterm‘bigidea’ to‘unifyingidea’(3.4,3.5)

• revisiontotheoutlineofthesciencecurriculumfrom K-10 to clarify the relationship between the strands and the unifying ideas, formerly the ‘bigideas’.

Action 3:


• considerationandimplementationofanecessaryand sufficient set of scientific theories and a set of contemporary contexts for learning science.

For noting:

• considerationandmonitoringbyadvisorypaneland jurisdictions of potential implementation issues that may arise from a final curriculum structure, including the recognition of consequences for teacher professional learning (3.3)



4 Embedding the three elements across the curriculum

Academics



Parents

Principals




Teachers

Unions

Action 1:


• developmentofarefinedcurriculumdesignforK-12 that embeds the elements of science inquiry skills and science as a human endeavour within the curriculum (4.1, 4.2, 4.3)

Action 2:


• additionaltexthasbeenincludedtorepresentthestrand of science as a human endeavour across the curriculum (4.1, 4.3)

• revisiontothestrandofscienceinquiryskillsinline with the National Scientific Literacy Progress Map (MCEETYA, 2006) (4.1, 4.2)

Action 3:


• furtheraligningthescienceinquiryskillsofthenational sciences curriculum with the National Scientific Literacy Progress Map (MCEETYA, 2006) (4.1, 4.2)



5 Representation of the science curriculum across the stages of schooling

Academics



Parents

Principals




Teachers

Undergraduate teacher

Unions

Action 1:


• developmentofarefinedcurriculumdesignfor K – 12 that represents the big ideas in a developmentally appropriate manner embedded within contemporary contexts for learning (5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10)

Action 2:


• revisionstotheuseofterms‘topicsandmajorconcepts’ (5.1, 5.2)

• revisionstotherepresentationofthecurriculumacross the stages of schooling, including the relevant unifying ideas of science (formerly the ‘bigideas’)(5.2,5.3,5.5,5.6,5.7,5.9,5.10)

• revisionstothescienceunderstandingstrand(formerly‘topicsandmajorconcepts’)includedacross the K-12 curriculum for the sciences (5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7)

• revisionstotheseniorsecondarycoursesincluded(5.8, 5.10)

For noting:

• Consultativeandcollaborativerelationshiptobeestablished in the writing of the sciences and the geography curriculums (5.4)

• Issuesforimplementationtobeconsidered:possibility of mandating of science study in senior years;existingstateandterritorycoursestoberetained as specialist courses (5.9, 5.12)



6 The inclusion of literacy and numeracy in the context of learning of, and about, science

Academics



Professional association – principals

Professional association – teachers (national)

Action 1:

Advice was sought from a Literacy and Numeracy Forum to develop definitions and writing instructions for literacy and numeracy across the learning areas. Advice was sought from an expert consultation group on key issues raised through the consultation feedback. Advice and direction was provided for:

• inclusionofliteracyandnumeracywithinlearningarea curriculum (6.1, 6.2, 6.3)

Action 2:


• additionaltexthasbeenincludedtoaddressliteracy (English) and numeracy (Maths) and connections to other learning areas (6.1, 6.2, 6.3)

Action 3:


• effectiveinclusionofliteracyandnumeracyinthescience curriculum (6.1, 6.2, 6.3)



7 The representation and inclusion of technology




Teachers

Action 1:


• Reviseddefinitionandinclusionoftechnology(7.1)

Action 2:


• Revisionstothedefinitionoftechnologymadeinrevised Sciences Framing Paper (7.1)

Action 3:


• incorporatingandexemplifyingtheapplicationand use of technology through relevant contemporary contexts for learning science


8 The representation and inclusion of Indigenous Australian perspectives in teaching and learning science

Academics

Business & industry stakeholder


Professional association – teachers (national)

Action 1:


• acknowledgementofIndigenousAustralianperspectives (8.1)

Action 2:


• inclusionofIndigenousAustralianperspectives as a cross curriculum perspective (8.1)

For noting:

• considerationandmonitoringbyjurisdictionsof Indigenous student achievement in learning, including in learning science (8.2)


6. Summary of submissions

The National English Curriculum: Framing Paper

Consultation period: October 2008 – February 2009

Data as at 27 March 2009

Submissions English 87Mathematics 67Science 78History 82

314

Surveys English 246Mathematics 159Science 192History 220

817

Total of all feedbackEnglish 333Mathematics 226Science 270History 302

1131


7. Appendix: What the community said in response to NCB survey questions

Introduction

Question 1: Please comment on the Introduction.

WhiletherewassomesupportfortheIntroduction,muchfeedbackwasprovidedabouttheIntroductionwith a number of matters raised including the definition of science, the inclusion of examples of Australian scientists, the singular reference to the UK Ofsted (2008) report and the perceived dominance of economic and political imperatives for learning about science (see Areas for further examination (1) for further information).

• The introduction provides a reasonable description of the purpose of science and the importance ofbeingabletoengageinscientificdiscussionandtobequestioningofthescientificclaimsmadeinthemedia.

Paragraph13identifiesasmallnumberofAustralians,inparticularNobelLaureatesthathavemadeacontributiontoscience.Unfortunatelythishasthepotentialtodiminishtheimportanceandvalueofoutstandingcontributionsmadebymanyscientistsinthiscountry. (Education authority)

• Wequestion thedefinitionofScienceas“awayofansweringquestionsabout thenaturalworld”.ThisimpliesthatScienceisconfinedtothingsorissuesthatare“natural”andnottothingsthataremechanicalorofhumanconstruction.“Naturalworld”islikelytoinvokeinterpretationsbasedon“theenvironment”.Thisseemstosuggestthatthingsthatarenot“natural”(thingsthataremechanicalorofhumanconstruction,orarefrombeyondearth)arenotapartofScience.WesuggestthatthisisrewordedtoreflectabroaderviewofwhatScienceis. (Professional association)

• Thereference in theopeningsentenceandsimilarexpressionselsewhereon“thenaturalworld” isambiguous and problematic. If “natural” is intended to be interpreted as excluding “constructed”or“designed” (this term isused in theTableonpage10), the scopeofmeaningdenies thegreatbodyofscientificinquiryconcernedwithhuman-constructedmaterialsandsystems,includinghumanorganisations. (Business or industry)

• Generallygood.Outliningthebackgroundofdevelopmentisessentialforunderstandingtheproposeddocument.(Educational professional – teacher)


Aims

Question 2: To what extent to you agree with the aims of the proposed national science curriculum?

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5% 9% 43% 43%

Question 3: Please comment on the aims of the proposed national science curriculum.

The proposed aims were endorsed by the respondents. There was concern articulated in regard to the capacity of the aims to provide for the range of scientific knowledge required in a technological society and the absence of clear recognition about the need to harness students’ interest and enthusiasm.

• Theaimsofthenationalsciencecurriculumneedtobesuccinct.Thedocumentcurrentlypresentstoomanydifferentexpectationsofthecurriculum.Theaimsareadequatelycapturedinparagraph18.

Thecurrentaimsemphasisetheroleofscienceeducationaspreparingstudentstobeactivecitizens(paragraph19)andprovidingafoundationforspecificsciencepathways.Awelldevelopednationalsciencecurriculumshouldachievethis.Thereispressureonthenationalsciencecurriculumtomeettheopposingdemandsofscienceforall,creatingscientifically-capablecitizensandongeneratingmore‘scientists’byencouragingstudentstopursuepost-compulsoryscience-relatedstudies.

Thenationalsciencecurriculumshouldfocusonthedevelopmentofscientificallycapablecitizenswhohavebeenengagedandexcitedbytheirscienceeducation.Ifthisoccursstudentsshouldseesufficientvalue,purposeandopportunityinsciencetoconsiderpost-graduatestudyinthefieldandpossiblyacareerinscienceandsciencerelatedfields. (Education authority)

• Interestinandunderstandingofthenaturalworldisagaintreatedsimplyasanoutcome.ThelistofAimsishighlyutilitarian–anapproachthathaslittleappealtothemajorityofstudentswhoexperiencelittleofusefromtheirsciencelearninginschoolunlessitscontentanddetailsareintrinsicallyappealingto them. (Academic)

• Theaimsof the sciencecurriculumdonotdealadequatelywith theprofileof scientificknowledgerequiredbyatechnologicalsociety.Asobservedabovethisprojectwillhaveamajor influenceonAustralia’ssciencetechnologyandengineeringfutureandinouropinionitisinsufficienttodetailabaselineinscientific literacy,as thepaperdoesinclause18,butbeyondthatmakeonlyadistantgesturetowardsabroaderremitasinclause19.Thecurriculumcanquitereasonablyarguescienceliteracyforthemanyanddiscoveryresearchforthefewbutneedstosaymuchmoreaboutwhatcomesinbetween.

Aframeworkdocumentshouldarticulateinbroadtermstheprofileoftechnologicalcapabilityrequiredofa21stcenturysocietyandexplainhowthecurriculumwilladdressit.Inthecurrentepochthosewhowant to encourage students into, for example, engineering, environmentalmanagement, bio-business,pathology,qualityassurance,etc,etc,nottomentionresearchscience,shouldhavefarmorecompellingsupportfromanationalcurriculuminscienceandmathematics.

(Business or industry stakeholder)

• Alittleconcernedthatthepoliticalprocessfoundtheneedtomakethejingoisticstatementsinthefinalaim,butIamsupportiveoftheconceptsexpressed.(Educational professional – teacher)


Terms used in this paper

Question 4: To what extent to you agree with the definition and application of the terms used in this paper?


5% 15% 48% 32%

Question 5: Please comment.

Much comment was made about the use of the term science capabilities as a replacement for the term scientific literacy/ies, and there were also calls for broader, deeper definitions of technology and contemporary science.

• TheprofessionalassociationsthatrepresenttheScienceeducationcommunityofAustraliamusttakeissue in the strongest possible termswith theabandonmentof thenotionof “Scientific Literacy” infavourof the term“sciencecapabilities”.Wedonotaccept theclaimexpressedin thisparagraphthat“sciencecapabilities”istobepreferredbecauseitis“commonlyunderstood”,whereas“scientificliteracy”causesconfusion.

Theseclaimsarefarfromcorrect.Toourmembers thesetermsarefarfrombeinginterchangeable.Feedback suggests thatwhilst “scientific literacy” is verywell understood as a broad overarchingunderstandingof critical scientificprinciplesandprocesses, the term“science capabilities” impliesasomewhat lowerorderchecklistof individualskills, thesortof thingsyoucantickaboxagainst. (Professional association)

• Generally,thetermsusedareappropriateandadequatelyjustifiedintheframingpaper.Howeverthelossof‘scientificliteracy’infavourof‘scientificcapabilities’isnotsupported...‘Capability’isnotthesamethingas‘literacy’andgiventhattheterm‘literacy’isbroadlyusedandwidelyrecognisedwithinexistingscienceprograms,includingPrimaryConnections,theargumentsforusing‘capabilities’arenotadequatelyjustifiedintheframingpaper.

Thereshouldalsobeconsiderationgiventotheuseoftheterm‘technology’.Itiscriticallyimportantforstudentstorecognisetherangeofcareerpathwaysopentothem.WhilewehaveembracedtheacronymSTEMandSETitdoesseemthatthedefinitionof‘technology’intheframingpaperreferstotheuseofscientificknowledgeintheprofessionofengineering,althoughthisisnotexplicit.

Membersofourorganisationhavecommentedthatinmanyinstancestheuseoftheterm‘engineering’isfarmoreappropriatethantheuseoftheterm‘technology’.Membersareparticularlyconcernedthattheuseoftheterm‘technology’isoftenmisleadingandconfusing. (Business or industry stakeholder)

• Theframingpaperemphasisestheimportanceofacontemporarysciencefocusinthenationalsciencecurriculum.Thetermusedcurrentlyfailstoidentifywhatwillbeconsideredascontemporary.Italsoposesarisktothefuturerelevanceorcurrencyofthenationalsciencecurriculum.Ifwespecifycontemporaryissuestobeaddressedinthesyllabustherewillneedtobecontinualreviewandrevisionofthestatedcurrentcontemporaryissuesasthesewillquicklybecomehistoricalfact. (Education authority)

• Sciencecapabilitiessuggestskills.Scientificliteraciessuggestamuchgreaterdepthofunderstanding.(Educational professional – teacher)


Considerations

Question 6: Comment on the considerations that need to be taken into account when developing national science curriculum. Are there other considerations not canvassed in the paper?

Considerations raised included the representation and inclusion of Indigenous Australian perspectives in teaching and learning science, and the inclusion of literacy and numeracy in the context of learning of, and about, science. Respondents also provided feedback on issues such as recommending or mandating sufficient time to the teaching of science, the implications of major system change and consequences for teacher training and professional learning and other resourcing needs.

• TheframingdocumentmustacknowledgeAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderPeoples’KnowledgeandLearningSystemsasdistinctentitieswithuniquevalueandintegrity,andgivestatustotheseasoursolemeansofengagingwithAustralia’sextra-colonialheritageofscientificandenvironmentalknowledge.ThisisparticularlyimportantasAboriginalculturehasimmensepotentialtoinformAustralianresponsestolandmanagement,naturalresourceandclimatechallenges.

Awordsearchindicatedtherewerenoreferencesto‘Aboriginal’,‘TorresStraitIslander’,‘Indigenous’,‘FirstNation’intheframingpaper.

TheframingdocumentandcurriculumneedtobeconsistentwithCOAGAgendas,MCEETYAAustralianDirectionsinIndigenousEducationandtheMelbourneDeclarationonEducationalGoalsforYoungAustraliansforAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderyoungpeople.

TheBoardandAdvisoryGroupsshouldconsiderbest-practicefromothercountries,suchasthestatusoftheMaoriPeopleinNewZealandCurriculumdocumentsandFirstNationsPeoplesinCanadianCurriculumdocuments. (Education authority)

• Tosimplyimplantacurriculumthatembodiesanewteachingphilosophyintoasystemgearedtowardsanold one runs a very high risk of failure. The national curriculumproposes tomoveaway fromtransmissionmodelteachingofdisciplineabstractionsandinsteadsupport(inourview,guided)studentcentredlearning,revealingthedisciplinesthroughtheirpowertosolveproblemsandenlightenstudentsabouttheirworld.

Onegreatdanger in thisapproach lies in the level ofpreparednessof teachers. It is nowwidelyrecognised that there isa teacher shortage in scienceandmathematics,and that teachersoutsidethesedisciplinesare increasinglycalledupon to teach them.However, to identifyand teach to therelationshipbetweenstudentinterestsandparticulardisciplineknowledgerequiresfargreaterdisciplineexpertisethanthetransmissionmodel.Intheorysuchanapproachtocurriculumshoulddeliversuperioreducational outcomes. Inpractice, inan education systemnot prepared for it, itmaywell deliverpoorer outcomes,with real science, as embodied inphysics, chemistry,mathematics andbiology,downgraded.

Teachinginawaythatrespondstostudentinterestsandthecurrentissuesoftheirworldalsorequiresadifferentprofessionalenvironmentforteachers.Inparticular,theywouldneedstructuredtimeandaccountability forprofessionaldevelopmentandparticipationinprofessionalnetworks thatallowedthem themeans to reflect upon and research these issues.At present such time is not part of theteacher’sworkinglife. (Business or industry stakeholder)

• Itisalsonecessarytoknowthetimethatistobeallocatedtoacoursebeforethecurriculumcanbedevelopedasthiswilldeterminethebreadthanddepthoftheelementsthatcanberealisticallycovered.TheNationalScienceCurriculummustbeabletobelearnedbymoststudentsintherecommendedtimeframe.Thecurriculummustallowflexibilitysothatlocalcontextscanbeusedtoenhanceitsrelevance.(Professional association)


Structure of the curriculum

Question 7: The paper outlines three elements: Science understanding, Science inquiry skills and Science as a human endeavour. To what extent to you agree with these elements as the basis for the national science curriculum?


3% 9% 45% 43%


Whiletherewassupportforthethreeelementsusedtostructurethecurriculum,manyrespondentscalledfor all three to be clearly articulated in each of the stages.

• TheseelementsshouldunderpinthedevelopmentoftheNationalScienceCurriculumK-12.Thereisnotacleararticulationof thesethreeelements in theproposedstructureof thecurriculumprovidedinTable1,norintheelaborationsofeachstageprovidedinthelatterpartoftheframingpaper.Theelementsappeartohavebeenlostintryingtoproposetopicsandcontentwhichshouldbetheroleofthecurriculumwritersnotoftheframingpaper.(Education authority)

• The element of Science as aHuman Endeavour has to be explicit and not implicit. It is arguablythemost importantof the threeelements,andexperience tellsus thatwhich isnotexplicitlystated,andassessable,willnotbetaught(aseffectively).Ifwevalueit,itmustbestatedandassessedfor.(Education authority)

• Thethreeinter-relatedelementsidentifiedintheFramingpapertodescribeschoolsciencewillprovideabalancedapproachtothenatureofscienceinthecurriculum. (Business or industry stakeholder)

• Thisalignsperfectlywithothercurriculabasedonpedagogicalresearchofbestpractice–theIBMYP(andprobablytheother2IBprogramsthatIdonotteach)andtheFrench‘CommonBaseofKnowledgeandSkills’Iamalsofamiliarwith–sosuggestsnationallyAustraliaisintegratingwithworldstandardbest practice.

It also sets up requirements for a balance of tasks for students to do – (1) Learning pedagogicalcontentknowledge–thesearethesymbolswithwhichstudentseventuallyneedtonavigatetheir(2)experimentalapproaches/resultsand(3)linktheirliteracybasedreading/languagetasksincontextofbigpicturecontemporaryideas.Allthreeoftheseelementssupporteachother,andthisdescriptionhelpsteachersplanunitsthatincludeavarietyofauthenticassessmenttasks–whichwillbeexcitingforteamsofteacherstoplanandveryengagingforstudentstodo.(Educational professional – teacher)



Question 9: The proposed structure identifies the curriculum focus, sources of science understanding and the relevant big ideas of science for each stage of schooling. To what extent do you agree with using these headings as organisers for the curriculum?


8% 24% 47% 21%


Therewassupportfortheuseof‘bigideas’tohelpframethecurriculumwiththesuggestionthattheseneed to be linked from stage to stage to support a common use of language, and to clearly link to the listed concepts and topics proposed for study. Respondents also provided feedback about the nature and descriptionofthe‘bigideas’.

• ‘Relevantbigideas’isanimportantelementofanysciencecurriculum.Thesearenotcleararticulatedandsomeofthedescriptionswouldnotbeconsideredbyteachersasbeingbigideasinscience.Theyaremorelikelytobedescribedbyteachersaspossiblecontextsforlearning.(Education authority)

• Thewriterswillneedtoembedthe‘bigideas’inthesciencedomaintogivethemmeaning.Whatisuniquetoscienceabouttheseideaswillneedtobeidentified.Whilethereareavarietyofpossiblewaystodescribescience,doesthemeaningofthe‘bigideas’liewithinthestrands/content/conceptualbasis of science, an inter-disciplinaryapproach, the topics, or is it in all three elements – scienceunderstanding,scienceinquiryskillsandscienceasahumanendeavouratalllevelsofschooling?

I thinkitneedsaverydeepunderstandingofsciencetoappreciatethe‘bigideas’.Teachersintheprimaryand lower secondary school frequently havea limited sciencebackgroundandwill needsupporttounderstandandmeaningfullyusethe‘bigideas’.Ascienceconceptualframeworkisthereforeneeded...Theomissionof‘strands’orotherorganizingframeworksofscienceconceptsisunhelpfulandneedsreconsideration.(Business or industry stakeholder)

• Wearesupportiveoftheuseofthebigideastohelpframethecurriculum.However,thereareissuesthatresultfromtheuseofthese.

• Thereneedstobeagreaterlinkingofthe‘bigideas’fromstagetostage,withamorecommonuseoflanguageacrossthestages.

• The‘bigideas’needtobemoreclearlylinkedtothelistedconcepts.Intheircurrentformtheycouldaddanotherlayerofcurriculumdesign,withoutgreatbenefit,ifcoherentlinkstotheconceptsarenotmade.Thismightlimitthebenefitofusingtheseoverarchingideas.

(Professional organisation)

• Theideaofteachingtothe‘BigIdeas’ismoreappropriatethantheknowledgeheavyapproachofold,offeringteachersflexibilityinthewaytheypresentthemajorscienceprinciplestotheirclassandopportunitytosettheseideasinafamiliarcontextforstudents.

(Educational professional – teacher aide)



Question 11: To what extent do you agree with this approach to organising science content for Stage 1?


9% 9% 55% 27%


Whilerespondentsconsideredtheinclusionofplayandemphasisonobservationalskillswasimportant,it was also suggested that this stage lacked relevant and appropriate content that could be explored and observed. The approach in general was supported, particularly moving from the immediate environment to broader understandings.

• TheaccountofscienceforStage1isreflectiveofthegenerallackofprimaryschoolinginthisdocument.Ineffect,itfailstooutlineascienceprogram.AcomparisonofStages1and2revealsthatStage1isnottakenseriouslyasanintroductiontoscience…Ifscienceistobeestablishedinprimaryschools,thedevelopersofnationalcurriculumwillhavetoseekadviceastowhatkindofscienceisappropriateforchildrenages5–8. (Professional association – Principals)

• Someofthe‘topicsandmajorconcepts’currentlylistedinStage2couldalsobeaddressedinStage1,dependingon the learningdemandof the concepts chosen. Early childhoodStage1 seems tounderestimatethecapacityofyounglearnersifitistoapplytotherange5to8yearsofage.

(Business or industry stakeholder)

• Thereisgoodgeneralagreementaboutthissection.Thefollowingpointsarenoted:

• The third header on the left “Topics and major concepts” might be better termed “Areas forInvestigation”. In the second row“Science inquiry skills”, there shouldbedotpoints relating to“developinganexplanation”andabout“cooperativelearning/workingtogether”.

• ThereshouldbemoreabouttheimportanceofCommunicationi.e.recordingandreportingfindings.TherearestrongLiteracyandNumeracylinkshere.

• There should be the introduction of content at this stage – suggest the big ideas of “Change” and “Patterns” be introduced here as a context thoughwhich science inquiry skills can begin tobedeveloped.(Professional association)

• IagreewiththeproposalshereandthinkthecurriculumshouldbeintegrateduptoendofStage3.

• Stage1:Thecurriculumfocustalksaboutthelocalnaturalworld…theuseofnaturalisproblematicbecause students arriving at school probably don’t distinguish between the made and naturalworlds.Theworldtheymostlyexperienceisprobablythemadeworld;ittakesefforttogooutintothenaturalworld.Doteachersignorethemadeworldordotheyexplorebothandleadstudentstooperationaldefinitionsofeachworld?Ithinkthelatteristhebetterwaytogo.

• ProvidelotsofannotatedobservationstatementsmadebystudentssothatK-6teacherscanseewhichonesarethebasesforascientificviewoftheworld(colour,shape,size,loud,soft,above,below,hot,cold…abouttherelationalandphysicalandchemicalproperties,thoughnotinthoseterms). Ifthisisnotdonewell,thenthebasisforthesecondstagefocuswillnotbethere. (Academic)





6% 15% 55% 24%


It was considered that Stage 2 contained too many topics and major concepts (too much content). There was a suggestion that the content that is listed could be clustered together to illustrate major concepts, reducing the amount of content.

• Stage2offersamuchmoreappropriateaccountofscienceintheprimaryyeats.Itcontainstoomuchcontent,giventhelikelytimeavailableforteachingscienceinthepriamaryyears,butthescientificconcepts,contentandskillsareappropriatetochildrenoftheseages.TheescessofcontentcouldbedealtwithinpartbymovingsomeaspectsofsomeconceptsandcontenttotheStage1description.(Professional association – Principals)

• Suggestthat‘topicsandmajorconcepts’listedbereviewedandgroupedintofewertopics.Forexample:plants,animals,planets,spaceexploration,matter,astronomyandelectricity.Scienceinquiryskills:Higher-orderthinkinginvolvedin‘analysingdatatoexplaintherelationshipbetweendifferentfactors’could be too challenging for students in this stage. Suggested to substitute theword explainwith‘describe’.(Education authority)

• Thereisstronggeneralagreementwiththistable.Particularpointsinclude:

• Secondrow“Scienceinquiryskills”toincludeanewdotpoint“recordingdata”.

• Thethirddescriptor“Topicsandmajorconcepts”:theuseoftheterm“topic”isproblematic.Thismightbebetterexpressedassomethinglike“Relevantimportantconceptsandareasforinvestigation”.

• ItwillbemostimportantthattheDoingofScience(theprocess)isnotovertakenbytheContentofScienceknowledgeinthissection.

• Whatismissing?

• IntegrationwithotherLearningAreas,particularlyinthePrimaryyears.ThesuccessfulteachingofScienceinaPrimarycontext,inmostsituations,reliesheavilyonthisintegration.WeknowfromexperiencethatwhereScienceinaPrimarysettingispresentedasastandalonecurriculumthatdoesnotdirectlylinktotheotherlearningareasitisfrequentlygivenverylittleattentionanddonebadlyifatall.Wethinkthatitwillbeimportantforthecurriculumwriterstospecificallydrawoutthemanyopportunitiesforlinkingtotheotherareasoflearning,andparticularlytoliteracyandnumeracy.(Professional association)

• Like the future focus. Easily fitswith cross-disciplinary thinking. Relevant andwide ranging topics.Topicsaretangible.Greatfocusoninvetigationanddoing–nospoonfeeding!

(Education professional – teacher)





4% 20% 47% 29%


Many respondents called for consistent language use across the stages of schooling, particularly in Stage 3 and Stage 4 (while maintaining an integrated approach to the study of science in Stage 3). Continuity of language was seen as important to aiding students to identify their interests and strengths. Respondents sought the inclusion of more specific advice about opportunities for differentiating the curriculum in the latter half of Stage 3.

• TheStage3topicsandmajorconceptscourseindicatesanunfortunatedeparturefromtheStage2course;thecontinuumoflearningemphasisedintheStage2curriculumneedstoflowonintosecondaryschoolifthenationalcurriculumistobeaseamlessandsuccessfullearningpathforstudents.

TheStage3topicsandmajorconceptsshouldbere-imaginedintoaseriesofmulti-disciplinarytopicsthatwillincreasethescientificliteracyoftheAustralianpopulation.

Itisimportantthatthekeyconceptsarepresentedinamultidisciplinarymanner,ratherthanasseparatedisciplinesofscienceegatomicstructureisimportantinchemistryintermsofreactions,equallyitisimportantinphysicsintermsofconductorsandinsulators.Itisalsoimportantinastronomyintermsofidentifyingthecompositionofastronomicalobjects.Atomicstructureshouldnotbeidentifiedjustasachemistry concept.

The “content” for the Science as a human endeavour element must be made explicit, just as theskillsandknowledgeandunderstandingwillbeprescribed.If thisisnotdone,but leftasavague,overarchingstatementthenitwilldropofftheprioritylistforteachers.Theywillfocusontheknowledgeandunderstandingandskillswhichhavebeenexplicitlyprescribed.(Professional association)

• Para52:‘Providingaunitinwhichstudentsconductascienceinvestigationinanareaoftheirchoosing’isviewedaspotentiallyaffirmingforstudentsbutpotentiallychallengingforsometeachers,particularlyinrelationtotheirownexpertiseandresourcesavailable.Recommendedthatguidanceforteachersbeprovided.

Para54:Recommendthatfurtherexplicitparametersbeprovidedinthenationalsciencecurriculumfordeterminingwhat‘topicsandmajorconcepts’studentsshouldstudy.Thiswillensurethebuildingofasoundknowledgebase,avoidanceofanovercrowdedcurriculumandconsistencyacrossthestates.

Para55:StrongsupportfordifferentiatedprogramsinStage3.StudentsmustbewellpreparedforspecialisationinStage4.

Suggestiontoembed‘Contemporaryscience’contentacrossthesciencesinStage3Table.

Suggestiontoinclude‘solarsystem’asadotpointunder‘Earthandspacesciences’inStage3Table. (Education authority)



Question 17: How many science courses should be included in the national science curriculum in the senior secondary years of schooling?


Respondents largely supported the proposed provision of physics, chemistry and biology as senior secondary courses with an earth and environmental science course seen as a preferred option to an environmental science course. There was some discussion about a further interdisciplinary course while respondents indicated support for existing courses across the states (for example, Human Biology, Agricultural Science and Psychology) to be retained as specialised courses.

• Itisrecommendedthatthedevelopmentoffivecoursesinthesenioryearsofschoolingwouldmeetthemultipleexternaldemandsonanationalcurriculum–Scienceforcitizenshipandscienceaspreparationforpost-compulsorystudies,however,furtherclarificationisrequiredinrelationtothenatureofthesecourses.

Environmental science should be a combined/integrated Environmental and Earth ScienceCourseotherwisewefailtorecogniseamajorareaofscientificendeavourandworkinthiscountry.

‘Science for life and work’ as a multidisciplinary course for students not wanting to pursue post-compulsorysciencestudiesisapplauded,however,itstitleislikelytobeunpalatablewithmany.Whilethisisadmittedlyaperceptionissuewemustrecognisethepowerofperceptionindrivingchoiceandtake-upofcourses. (Education authority)

• Physics,ChemistryandBiologyaregenerallyacceptedcoursesinallstatesandterritoriesattheSeniorSecondarylevel.Wewouldstronglysuggest that the“EnvironmentalScience”coursebeexpandedto“EarthandEnvironmentalScience”.Thiscoursehasseenasignificant increase in theuptakeofstudentssinceitwasintroducedinNSWin2001,whencomparedtotheprevious“Geology”course.ThecombinationofEarthScienceandEnvironmentalSciencerepresentsanaturalsynergyofscientificideasandconceptsasenvironmental issues cannotbediscussed in isolation;environmental issuesimpactontheEarthandequallytheEarth’sprocessesimpactontheenvironment.

(Professional association)

• ThefourthcourseshouldbeEarthandEnvironmentalScience.itisimpossibletostudyenvironmentalsciencewithoutaknowledgeofearthscienceandgeology.EarthandEnvironmentalScience(EES)isanintegratedsciencethatencompassesallothersciencesbutcanbestudiedatanumberofdifferentacademiclevelsusingmanydifferentlocal,regionalandnationalcontexts.

(Business and industry stakeholder)

• EnvironmentalSciencewouldbetterbereplacedbyEarthandEnvironmentalScience(EES).Withthelatter title,seniorsecondarycoursessuchas thenewEESinWAandtheresurgentGeologyinSAwouldfitwellunderthisbroaderbanner.Otherwise,‘Geology’(particularly)couldhardlyberegardedas‘EnvironmentalScience’andtherewouldbenostudiesof‘theEarth’undertheseniorsecondaryNationalScienceCurriculum.Itisimportantthestudentsbegivensomeopportunitytostudy‘theEarth’atseniorlevel,becauseofit’srelevancetoallscience(notjust‘environmentalscience’.

(Educational professional – teacher)


Pedagogy and assessment

Question 19: This section outlines approaches to pedagogy as they apply to the content of a national science curriculum. To what extent do you agree?


4% 8% 45% 43%


There was general support for the statements about pedagogy in the framing paper. In relation to the statement that there needs to be more emphasis on student engagement and inquiry and less on teacher transmission, it was considered that a variety of effective pedagogies need to be employed to ensure that science education reflects accurate scientific thought and practice with schools able to select approaches that suit their ethos, values or philosophy.

• WesupportthepedagogicalapproachoutlinedintheFramingPaper.Itwillbeimperative,however,forthistobesuccessfulthatthereissufficienttimetocoverthecurriculumusingstudentengagementand inquiry. The transmissionmodel is frequently usedwhen time is at a premium, however, thisdoesnotallowdeepunderstandingtooccur.Itwillalsobeimperativethatappropriateandtargetedprofessionallearningopportunitiesareprovidedtoallteachersofsciencetoensurethatallteachersengagewiththenationalcurriculumdocumentsandthepedagogyunderpinningit.

(Professional association)

• The value of an inquiry approach to learning in science is strongly acknowledged, however, thepurposeofcurriculumisnottodictatepedagogybutratherenableit.Thisenablingcapacitywillneedtobeembeddedinthecurriculumasitisdeveloped.

Iftheexperiencesofstudentsaretoapproximatewhatoccursintherealworld,thenthereneedstobeopportunityforteacherstoprovideaccesstoarangeoflearningexperiencesanduseavarietyofteachingstrategies.Question19refersto‘models’ofpedagogyhowevertheFramingpaperfocusessolelyonInquiry.(Education authority)

• Asnotedinparagraph59oftheFramingPaper,toachievethestatedaimsoftheNationalScienceCurriculumthereneedstobelessemphasisonteacher’sexplainingtostudentshowscienceworks,andmoreofafocusonstudentengagementandinquiry.Amodelbasedonteacher’saskingmorequestionsanddiscussionswillresultingreaterstudentengagement.

Weviewthatpedagogyisinextricablylinkedtoresources…Itappearsclearthatwithoutadequateteachingresources,theartofteachingiscompromised.Theseconsiderationsneedtobeintheforefrontofcurriculumwriter’sminds,asatrulymodernandengagingcurriculumwillonlybeasgoodasthesupportthataccompaniesit.

Werecognisethateffectiveteachersuseanarrayofteachingstrategiesbecausethereisnosingle,universal approach that suits all situations. Different strategies used in different combinationswithdifferentgroupingsofstudentswill improve learningoutcomes.Somestrategiesarebettersuited toteachingcertainskillsandfieldsofknowledgethanareothers.Somestrategiesarebettersuitedtocertainstudentbackgrounds,learningstylesandabilities.Again,ourviewisthatconsiderationsforteachingstylesandsituationsneedtobeconsideredinconstructingthenationalcurriculum.

ItisimportantthattheNationalScienceCurriculumencouragesteacherstouseanarrayofdifferentteachingstrategiesthatsupportstudentengagementandconnectednesstothewidercommunityandindustry. (Business and industry stakeholder)

• Notenoughemphasisondevelopingworkingscientificallyskillsandapedagogythatenablesmultipleentryandexitpointswithinanareaofstudy. (Educational professional – teacher)


Pedagogy and assessment

Question 21: This section outlines approaches to assessment as they apply to the content of a national science curriculum. To what extent do you agree?


2% 11% 53% 34%


There was general support for the statements about assessment in the framing paper. The reference to the ‘backwardsdesignprocess(WigginsandMcTighe:2005)wassupported,andalsorespondentssuggestedthat greater emphasis could be included about the various purposes of assessment such as assessment for learning (diagnostic assessment), assessment as learning (formative assessment) and assessment of learning (summative assessment). It was considered that the framing paper needed to state the importance of assessing all three elements specified in the structure of the curriculum.

• Assessmentisintegraltolearning.Itisessentialthatinformationregardingpossibleassessmenttoolsis part of the curriculumdocumentation. It is also important that assessment of all elements occur,includingScienceasahumanendeavour.Frequently,assessmentfocusesonscienceunderstandingandscienceinquiryskills.Thisdoesnotassessunderstandingoftheconceptsandskillsofscienceinspecificapplications,historicalcontextsorcontemporaryissues.Toensurethatscientificliteracyisthefocus,assessmentmustcoverallelementsinthecurriculum.(Professional association)

• Assessment is a crucial component in the planning and implementation of educational programs.Furtheradviceisneededabout:

• modesofassessment,includingassessmenttoimprovestudentlearning • howassessmentrelatestopedagogyandthedevelopmentofsciencecapabilities • assessmentrequirements • achievementstandardsindescribingoverallstudentachievement. (Education authority)

• Thebackwardsdesignisgoodintheory,butforStage4thestakesareclearlyveryhighandmuchmoredetailaboutassessmentwillneedtobemadepublicatthesametimeasthecurriculumintent.InWesternAustraliathenewYear11andYear12courseshadtobeconsiderablyalteredbecauseassessmentwasnotconsideredcarefullyenoughduringthecoursewritingprocess.Asaconsequence,enormousresourceswerewasted. (Academic)

• Theframeworkforthecurriculumandthefocusofassessmentshouldbebasedonwhatitvalued,sothatassessmentcansafelydrivethefocusofthecurriculum.Teacherswouldbeclearaboutobjectives,howwelltheseobjectiveswerebeingmetandhowperformancewasimproving.

(Educational professional – teacher)


Question 23: Do you have any other comments to make on the paper?

Respondents produced a variety of comments in regard to the paper. The responses included ideas for inclusion in the paper, reactions to the pedagogy and assessment section of the paper, affirmations of the intent of the paper, comments that are outside the scope of the national science curriculum at this stage and ideas for the development phase of the national science curriculum.

• ThepaperneedstoarticulateaclearcontinuumoflearningacrosstheK-12sciencecurriculum.Thedescriptionsofcontentateachstageofthesyllabusseemtostopatstage3withstage4yettobedeveloped.

Thenatureandstructureof thestagesalsoneedstobeclarified. It isunderstoodthat thestagesofschoolingwillbedeterminedshortly.

It isessential that thenationalsciencecurriculumenablesandsupportsstudentengagementwithadeepunderstandinganddevelopmentof enabling science knowledgeunderstandingand skills forcitizenshipinthe21stcentury.Thecurriculummustfocusondepthofknowledge,understandingandskills. (Education authority)

• Goodtoseethefocusondepthratherthanbreadth.

Goodtoseerecognitionthatmodernscienceismostlyintegratedandcrossdisciplinaryandthatthismustbetakenintoconsiderationintheschoolcurriculum.Atthesametimethebasicideasfromthemajorsciencedisciplinesforthebasisofmuchofthesciencethatstudentsshouldlearninschool.

I noticed some inconsistency in the terminology used for topics or the science disciplines. E.g.“geosciences”(p.5),cf“earthandspacesciences”(p.6);and“physics,chemistry”(p.5),cf“physicalsciences”(p.10).Consistencywouldbeveryhelpful.(Academic)

• It must be clearly articulated in the curriculum documents the depth of understanding required bystudentsat theendofeachstage.Are thestudentsrequired to“identify”,“describe”,“explain”“discuss”etc?Thiswilldetermine thedepthandalso the time thatmayberequired toaddress theconcept or element.

Therearemanyhistoricalexamplesthatindicatethattheintentofcurriculumdocumentsdonotbecomeembeddedinpracticeunlessthereissignificantandappropriateprofessionallearningopportunitiesforallteachersofscience.Theteachersmusthaveadeepunderstandingofthedocumentsbeforetheycaneffectivelyuse themtoinformtheirpractice.Hence, theremustbeprovisionforsignificantandappropriateprofessional learningopportunities for teachersof sciencebefore thebeginningof theimplementationphaseoftheNationalScienceCurriculum.

ThereisalsoaneedtoensurethatthereissufficientresourcingofallschoolstoensurethattheNationalScienceCurriculumcanbe implementedeffectively.This isparticularlyappropriate in lateStage2sciencewherestudentsinsomestatesandterritorieswillhavetheresourcingavailableinSecondarySchoolswhileotherswillhavetheresourcingavailableatPrimarySchools.Theresourcingmustbesufficient for all schools. The resources availablewill influence the types of learning opportunitiesavailabletostudents. (Professional association)

• Thankyouforthisopportunitytocomment.Despitemymany‘disagrees’Iamlargelysupportiveoftheessenceanddirectionofthisframework,anddelightedthatweareatlastworkingtogetherasanationtohaveanationalcurriculum.Hopefullyitwillbeeasilyusedforpedagogyandassessmentandallowforthedevelopmentofenergisedpassionatescienceteaching! (Educational professional – teacher)

framing paper consultation report: the sciences · framing paper consultation report: the sciences...

Documents