the response of teachers to new subject areas in a national science curriculum: the case of the...

The Response of Teachers to NewSubject Areas in a NationalScience Curriculum: The Case ofthe Earth Science Component

CHRIS KINGKeele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, United Kingdom

Received 12 January 1999; revised 18 September 2000; accepted 27 October 2000

ABSTRACT: The National Curriculum for Science (NCS) introduced to schools in Englandand Wales in 1989 contained an earth science component that was new to many secondaryscience teachers. Ten years after this introduction, a survey was undertaken to test teacherperception of the effectiveness of their teaching in this subject area that was new to them,and to identify factors that might affect this effectiveness. The information gained has beenused in reviewing possible curriculum changes and in developing professional developmentstrategies that would improve the effectiveness of NCS earth science teaching. The datacollected from science teachers who are currently teaching this earth science componentrevealed that their background knowledge of earth science from their own education wasgenerally poor, even though most of them considered their knowledge to be “moderate.” Theteachers indicated that the achievement of their pupils in earth science is “moderate,” whilereports on national testing show it is poor. They reported that their main sources of earthscience knowledge and understanding were science textbooks written for 11- to 16-year-oldpupils (with their small earth science content of variable quality) and science colleagues(who often have poor earth science backgrounds too). Most teachers indicated that theyneeded more support in this area. Overall, the data indicated that while teachers considertheir teaching in this area to be “moderate,” other evidence suggests it is poor. If this situationis not to continue it should be addressed. In the longer term the emphasis on the earth sciencecontent of the National Science Curriculum could be changed (either enhanced or reduced)within larger scale curriculum changes. Until such curriculum change takes place, effectivemethods of professional development should be instituted so that teachers have a muchimproved basis on which to build their earth science teaching. Similar measures would benecessary in other countries and situations in which new curriculum material is introducedthrough a National Curriculum. C© 2001John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Sci Ed85:636–664, 2001.

BACKGROUND

The National Curriculum for Science (NCS) was first introduced to schools in Englandand Wales as a statutory requirement in 1989. This heralded major changes in the teachingof science in most secondary schools (schools for 11- to 16-year-olds) in a number of ways,as discussed by Black (1995) in his review of the formulation of the NCS. One of the aspects

Correspondence to:C. King; e-mail: [email protected]

C© 2001John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

TEACHERS’ RESPONSE TO NEW SUBJECT AREAS 637

of the NCS that was new to many science teachers was the inclusion of a component ofearth science. This report evaluates the views of science teachers on their teaching of this“new” material and discusses ways in which they can be supported in the future.

Prior to the introduction of the NCS, the practice in most secondary schools had been toteach the three “traditional” school science subjects of biology, chemistry, and physics toall pupils between the ages of 11 and 14, usually as separate subjects. Pupils between theages of 14 and 16 were offered these subjects as option choices. Most science teachers werespecialists in their own subject areas with little experience of teaching other “traditional”science subjects, and usually no experience at all of teaching “nontraditional” science.

The NCS introduced in 1989 embraced the concept of “broad balanced science for all”and as part of its breadth it included an earth science component. Thus many science teacherswere, for the first time, asked to teach some elements of earth science. Earth science remainsa component of the NCS and so the earth science elements have now been taught in sciencefor 10 years.

This survey was carried out in the light of the 10 years of experience, to gauge the effec-tiveness of the earth science teaching that is currently taking place in schools, from the per-spective of the teachers involved. It sought to identify issues that are affecting earth scienceteaching so that suggestions could be made on how the effectiveness could be improved.

The objectives of the survey were therefore

• to gauge teacher perception of the effectiveness of their earth science teaching;• to identify issues that might affect this effectiveness; and• to gather background data that would underpin the development of strategies to

improve the effectiveness of the earth science teaching.

INTRODUCING NEW CONTENT THROUGH A NATIONALCURRICULUM

When a new National Curriculum is implemented it encompasses a range of subjectareas, of which science is usually one. In most subject areas the content and methodologyare reconsidered and revised, but little new content is introduced. Thus the introductionof a new area of content through a National Curriculum subject is unusual and worthy ofexamination.

Reports on the effects of curriculum changes that have introduced new content are fewand far between. As Geddis (1996, p. 263) notes “Presently, the literature contains fewdetailed examples of teachers engaged in learning new frames and learning to change theiractions accordingly.” Where such examples have been reported, a number of effects on theteachers concerned have been noted. Geddis (1996) found that teachers in Canadian schoolshad difficulty in adapting their teaching strategies while Abd-El-Khalick and BouJaoude(1997) reported that inadequate subject knowledge of teachers in Lebanese schools hada very detrimental effect on effective teaching. Roberts (1995) found that teachers in USschools initially did not like the new teaching approaches needed, but after a year or twohad “turned around.” Biamba, Katterns, and Kirkwood (1993) in a study in Sierra Leoneconcluded that the building of “bridges between school science and everyday science wascritical” to the success of introducing new material.

As far as the National Curriculum in England and Wales is concerned, Hacker and Rowe(1997) have analyzed the general changes in teaching brought about by the introduction ofthe whole National Curriculum (that includes the NCS). They found a general increase incontent and reductions in the development of thinking skills and of practical work acrossall subject areas.

638 KING

Meanwhile, Russell, Qualter, and McGuigan (1995), in studying the effects of the Na-tional Science Curriculum in England and Wales at primary and lower secondary levels (agerange 5 – 14), found that the lack of background knowledge and understanding of teachers,particularly in the addressing of unfamiliar concepts, was limiting their coverage of thehigher levels of the curriculum. They noted (p. 490) that, “many of the teachers have neitherthe subject matter nor the pedagogical knowledge required” and it was this that limitedthe effectiveness of their teaching. The survey carried out by Jenkins (2000) among sci-ence teachers showed that some teachers in particular resent having to teach earth sciencebecause of their lack of training to do so.

Research carried out into teachers’ requirements for professional development in sciencehas shown that, “subject knowledge[my italics], pedagogy, pupil learning and classroommanagement all featured highly on their list of INSET rankings” (Dillon et al., 2000). (Note:INSET, In-Service Education and Training, is the term used for professional developmentin the United Kingdom.)

With the range and scale of difficulties noted in these studies, it might be anticipatedthat introduction of the earth science component of the NCS would have similar problems.However, it is difficult to assess these difficulties unless the background and context of theimplementation are understood. These are introduced and discussed below.

THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM OF ENGLAND AND WALESAND ITS EARTH SCIENCE COMPONENT

The complex story of the evolution of the National Science Curriculum of England andWales has been discussed by Black (1995). King (1996, 1998) has detailed the changesin the earth science component through this evolution. Orion et al. (1999a, 1999b) andThompson (1999a) provide detailed accounts of the debates concerning earth science thattook place before and during the implementation of the different models of the NCS.

The NCS has evolved through eight different models, four of which have been imple-mented in schools. The earth science component of the four different versions is shownin Table 1 and examples of the “Statements of Attainment” relating to the earth sciencecomponent are shown in Table 2.

In addition to the listing of content, the version of the NCS operating at the time theteacher survey was carried out specified some of the ways in which this material shouldbe approached. Teachers were guided to emphasis “systematic enquiry,” the “applicationof science,” “the nature of scientific ideas,” “communication,” and “health and safety”and to teach the content of the NCS through these contexts where possible. As shownin Table 1, the main body of the NCS was subdivided into four “Attainment Targets.”The first of these focused on “Experimental and Investigative Science,” while the otherthree detailed the science content. Through the first Attainment Target, teachers wereguided to teach elements of practical and investigative work through whole investiga-tions. These involved, “planning experimental procedures,” “obtaining evidence,” “ana-lyzing evidence and drawing conclusions,” and “evaluating evidence.” The earth science,like all other areas of content, should have been taught through these contexts, wherepossible.

The NCS has been revised yet again (for the eighth time), with the latest revision (thefourth mandatory version) being implemented from September 2000. Separate versions wereprepared for England (QCA, 1999b) and for Wales (ACCAC, 2000). The overall contentof these latest versions is little changed from the previous one. However, the specificationof how the content should be approached has been extended from the points noted in theparagraph above to include more emphasis on scientific ideas and controversies, the contexts


TABLE 1The Development of the National Curriculum for Science and its EarthScience Component

Implementation National Curriculum Positioning of the EarthDate Document Science Component

September 1989 Science in the NationalCurriculum (DES, 1989)

This was preparedfollowing consultationon two previous drafts.It was the firstmandatory version ofthe NCS.

The first statutory National ScienceCurriculum contained 17 ScienceAttainment Targets (Scs), including

Sc5: Human influences on theEarth

Sc9: Earth and atmosphereSc16: The Earth in space

September 1992 Science in the NationalCurriculum (1991) (DES,1991b)

The second mandatoryversion of the NCS.The previous 17 Scmodel was consideredtoo cumbersome. Thissecond mandatoryversion of the NCS,based on a previousdraft, was the fifthmodel to appear.

Included four ScsSc1: Scientific investigationSc2: Life and living processesSc3: Materials and their propertiesSc4: Physical processes

Broadlythe environmental science (from

the previous Sc5) was includedin Sc2;

the geology and mateorology (fromthe previous Sc9) was placed inSc3;

the astronomy (from the previousSc16) was put into Sc4.

September 1995 Science in the NationalCurriculum (DFE, 1995)

The whole of theNational Curriculum(i.e., all NationalCurriculum subjects),including the NCS,was revised to reducecontent. This was thethird mandatoryversion and theseventh model of theNCS to appear.

The four Sc model was retained butthe content of all aspects of sciencewas reduced. The content waslisted in statements which weremuch more specific than those inprevious versions, and so therewere more of them. Earth sciencesuffered more than most in theoverall reduction. In Sc3 (chemistryrelated) the meteorology almostdisappeared and the number ofstatements relating to geology wasreduced. Material relating to thestructure of the Earth was movedinto the physics-related section,Sc4.

September 2000 Science: The NationalCurriculum for England(QCA, 1999b)

The content of theNational ScienceCurriculum was littlealtered from theprevious version butthe approach to thiscontent was changedby putting moreemphasis on scientificideas, controversies,and applications.

The four Sc model was retained. Thepattern of earth science contentwas changed by putting moreemphasis on the formation of rocksat 11- to 14-year-old level (KS3)and stressing the evidence thatrocks contain for their formation at14- to 16-year-old level. Thestatement relating to plate tectonicswas moved to the physics-relatedattainment target.

640 KING

TABLE 2Examples of “Statements of attainment” in the Earth Science Component ofthe Four Mandatory Versions of the National Curriculum for Science (1989,1991, and 1995 and 2000)

National CurriculumDocument Examples of Some of the Detail of the Earth Science Component

Science in theNationalCurriculum(DES, 1989)

“Sc9: Earth and Atmosphere” included 27 statements about theEarth and atmosphere to be taught at different levels, dependingon the age and ability of the pupils (from Level 1 for primarychildren (e.g. 5-year-olds) to Level 10 for able and oldersecondary school children (e.g. 16-year-olds); most secondaryschools began teaching their 11-year-olds at Levels 3 or 4. 13 ofthe 27 statements related to weather and climate and 14 to thesolid Earth. They included

Level 3–be able to give an account of an investigation of somenatural material (rock or soil).

Level 5–be able to explain how volcanoes and earthquakes areassociated with the formation of landforms.

Level 7–be able to state qualitatively the relationship betweenpressure and winds.

Level 9–be able to describe in simple terms the layered structureof the inner Earth, and explain the evidence that favours sucha model.

Science in theNationalCurriculum(1991)(DES, 1991b)

“Sc3: Materials and their properties” contained all the chemistry andthe geology and meteorology content. In all it contained 50statements, of which 6 related to geology and 6 to meteorology.These included

Level 3–understand some of the effects of weathering on rocks.Level 5–understand the water cycle in terms of the physical

processes involved.Level 7–understand how some weather phenomena are driven

by energy transfer processes.Level 9–be able to describe and explain the supporting

evidence, in simple terms, for the layered structure of theinner Earth.

Science in theNationalCurriculum(DFE, 1995)

“Sc3: Materials and their properties” contained all the chemistry, thegeology content and a little meteorology. The Sc3 content waslisted in 122 statements that were much more specific thanstatements had been previously. Also, the content was no longerdivided by level, but by pupil age.

Of the 37 statements relating to 11- to 14- year-old pupils (Key Stage3—KS3), 4 related to geology and none to meteorology. Theyincluded

how rocks are weathered by expansion and contraction and bythe freezing of water

that the rock cycle involves sedimentary, metamorphic andigneous processes that take place over different time scales

Of the 62 statements relating to 14- to 16-year-old pupils (KS4), 6related to geology and 2 to meteorology; they included

how the atmosphere and oceans evolved to their presentcomposition

Continued


TABLE 2Examples of “Statements of Attainment” in the Earth Science Componentof the Three Mandatory Versions of the National Curriculum for Science(1989, 1991, and 1995) (Continued)

National CurriculumDocument Examples of Some of the Detail of the Earth Science Component

how the sequence of and evidence for these processes (igneous,sedimentary and metamorphic rock-forming processes) isobtained from the rock record

Science: TheNationalCurriculumfor England(QCA, 1999b)

“Sc3: Materials and their Properties” included the majority of theearth science related material at KS3, but at KS4, the statementsrelating to plate tectonics and the structure of the Earth had beenmoved to the “Sc4: Physical Processes” section.

The “Sc3: Materials and their Properties” section for 11- to14-year-olds (KS3) has 26 statements, of which 5 relate toearth science including

about the formation of rocks by processes that take placeover different timescales, and that the mode of formationdetermines their texture and the minerals they contain

The “Sc3: Materials and their Properties” attainment target for14- to 16-year-olds (KS4) contains 51 statements of which4 are earth science statements that include

how the sequence of, and evidence for, rock formation anddeformation is obtained from the rock record

The “Sc4: Physical Processes” section contains 55 statementsof which 2.5 relate to earth science, including

that the Earth’s outermost layer, the lithosphere, is composedof plates in relative motion, and that plate tectonic processesresult in the formation, deformation and recycling of rocks

of scientific work, and the power and limitations of science. The earth science componentof these latest versions remains very similar to the previous one.

During the past 10 years there has been an ongoing debate about the relationship of earthscience to geography and science. The early versions of the NCS were prepared beforea model for the national geography curriculum was developed. Some geography teachersat that stage were concerned that, since geological and meteorological aspects of earthscience were being included in the science curriculum, the physical geography content ofthe geography curriculum might be reduced. It was suggested at that time that geographyteachers might help science teachers in devising schemes of work to cover the materialor by teaching it themselves (Mottershead & Hewitt, 1989). When the first version of theNational Curriculum for Geography (NCG) was published, many of these concerns wereseen to be unfounded since the working party preparing the NCG had responded to therequirement of the Secretary of State “to impart a distinctively geographical dimensionto learning in the areas concerned.” Nevertheless some geography and science teachersremained concerned that some of the content seemed to overlap, despite that fact that this“overlap material” was approached in different ways. Some attempts were made to suggestways of dealing positively with the “overlap material” positively, through discussion andcollaboration between geography and science departments (NCC, 1993b; Adamczyk et al.,1994; Trend, 1995). More recent concerns of geography teachers have focused on protecting

642 KING

the place of geography in the curriculum rather than how the component of earth sciencein the science curriculum might be affecting the geography curriculum.

Some science teachers welcomed the earth science component as providing valuablebreadth to the science curriculum. In particular, those teachers involved in the SchoolsCouncil Integrated Science Project (SCISP) (Hall & Mowl, 1975) had already been teachingbroad and balanced science with an earth science component for some years. Some chemistryteachers who had been introduced to mineral process chemistry as an option in the Nuffield“A” level course in chemistry (the course described by Dudeney, 1980) were also favorablydisposed to earth science.

However, other science teachers argued that the earth science should be “given back togeography.” As Thompson (1999a) recounts, when geological elements of earth sciencewere placed in the section that was largely chemistry “the amount of lobbying against theteaching of earth science components reached new heights and some of it, largely instigatedby the chemists . . . was quite vicious and partisan and blatantly against the concept ofbreadth and balance . . . ”

One of the issues seems to have been that because some geography teachers also taughtgeology, many science teachers assumed that there was a significant geological elementin geography courses. However, the geography curriculum in Britain has never containedmaterial on the formation and interpretation of rocks and their relationship to the structureof the Earth and plate tectonics (see Thompson, 1999a).

There currently seems to be general acceptance in England and Wales of how the “overlapmaterial” should be perceived in the two different subject areas. The geography curriculuminvolves study of processes acting at and near the surface of the Earth (surface processes)as a means of understanding how landscape develops and as part of “hazard geography.”Meanwhile the science curriculum considers surface and deeper processes in the context ofrock formation and the evolution of the Earth.

Resentment at having to teach earth science remains amongst some science teachers,as explained by Jenkins (2000) on the basis of a survey of practising science teachers,“[There] is enduring resentment among a number of chemistry teachers, in particular, ofthe inclusion of earth science in the national science curriculum.” The reasons for theresentment vary. “They include the belief that topics drawn from earth science have beenincluded in the national curriculum at the expense of chemical topics, a perceived difficultyin devising appropriate practical work to engage the attention of pupils and insecurityat having to teach beyond the science specialism[s] in which the teachers were trained”(p. 330).

THE TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE EARTH SCIENCECOMPONENT

Science teachers have now been teaching the earth science component of the NCS forup to 10 years. Initially, the NCS was implemented progressively in secondary schools;teaching began with 11-year-old pupils in 1989/1990 and was not until 1993/1994 that itreached all pupils up to the age of 16. Over the 10-year period, the teaching of the earthscience topics has been managed in different ways in different schools, and this continuestoday. At KS3 (11- to 14-year-olds) it is taught

a. by all teachers as part of an integrated or coordinated science approach, orb. by those teachers who have most interest in this area of science, orc. by those who are delegated to teach in this “new” area.


In a few schools, the geography department has been invited to teach the earth sciencecomponent of the NCS at KS3.

The science learning of 11- to 14-year-olds (KS3) is assessed in two ways on a nationalbasis. Teachers carry out their own assessments and their marks are submitted to the assess-ment authority. Meanwhile the assessment authority sets Standard Assessment Test (SAT)papers for all pupils at the end of KS3.

The situation for 14- to 16-year-olds (KS4) is more complex since there was a KS4examination system (called the General Certificate of Secondary Education, GCSE) thatpredated the implementation of the NCS, and the NCS was adapted to this system. Syllabusesand examinations for the GCSE were devised by a series of independent ExaminationBoards. When the KS4 NCS was implemented, the Examination Boards were required torewrite their syllabuses to incorporate all the content and guidance provided by the NCS, butcould interpret the material in their own ways and could add extra material and guidance,as they felt appropriate.

The result at that time was a series of comparable but differing GCSE syllabuses thatdealt with the earth science component of the NCS in different ways. In the 11 syllabusesprepared by the five Examination Boards in England and Wales for the first mandatoryversion of the NCS (first examination in 1994), the earth science variously appeared asseparate modules or units or was linked with the physics or with the chemistry content orboth. Thus the earth science was likely to be taught by teachers with a variety of specialismsat KS4.

However, when the second mandatory version of the NCS appeared, which was taught inschools from September 1992, the earth science had been assigned to the three main contentAttainment Targets, Sc2, 3, and 4 (see Table 1). Following the lead of the NCS, when the11 GCSE syllabuses were published for this new version.

a. the environmental science component became mostly associated with the biologyand has since been taught largely by the biology specialists;

b. the geological and meteorological components were largely included with the chem-istry, and so were taught mainly by chemistry specialists; and

c. the astronomical components were linked to physics, to be taught by physicsspecialists.

Since most biology degrees in the United Kingdom contain components of environmentalscience there was little complaint from biology teachers about this revision. Since that time,through the various revisions of the NCS and the syllabuses, the environmental sciencecomponent has developed more and more of an ecological “flavor.” Meanwhile, most UKphysics degrees contain elements of astronomy so, in general, physics teachers were notunhappy with the revision either.

However, since elements of geology and meteorology are not normally included in UKchemistry degree courses, the challenge for chemistry teachers was rather greater (as evi-denced by the concerted lobbying against the earth science component by some chemistryteachers at this stage, recorded by Thompson, 1999a). The situation has changed little sincethen, except that most of the meteorology in the NCS has been removed. Graduate chemistswho become science teachers are usually asked to teach geological components of the NCSat KS4, despite the lack of geology in their educational backgrounds. Since most UK teachereducation institutions do not have an earth science specialist on their staff, students receivelittle input in this area during their teacher education, and so are generally ill preparedfor their teaching of NCS earth science. This has contributed to the current dissatisfactionamongst some chemistry specialists (recorded by Jenkins, 2000).

644 KING

GCSE is assessed by external examinations set by the Examination Boards and a teacher-assessed coursework component (coursework comprises some 20% of the total mark). Thelarge majority (c. 80%) of students take Double Award Science (a “Double Award” scienceGCSE is equivalent to two other GCSE subjects) with its small earth science component.A further 8% of students take GCSEs in all three traditional science subjects (biology,chemistry, and physics) that, between them, contain the same small earth science component.

Problems with the teaching and assessment of the earth science component at GCSElevel have been compounded by errors in some of the science syllabuses and examinations.A survey of 1998 science syllabuses for their earth science content, carried out by Kinget al. (1998, 1999), showed an average of 2.6 errors and oversimplifications per syllabus(range between 1 and 6). Meanwhile, the examination papers analyzed during the samesurvey, showed that an average of 10% of the earth science questions contained inaccuracies(ranging between 60% of the questions on one paper and none in some of the others).Syllabus and examination errors are likely to compound the earth science misconceptionsof the science teachers involved.

SUPPORT MATERIALS FOR TEACHING THE EARTH SCIENCECOMPONENT

In 1989, when teaching of NCS earth science began, there were very few specific earthscience support materials published that involved the practical approach with which mostUK science teachers were familiar. Some of those that were available at that time are listedin King and Kennett (1998). Since then, a number of specific earth science materials havebeen published many of which are listed in Table 3.

In addition, many publishers have produced textbooks and “readers” targeted at theNCS. Most of these are, in effect, suggested courses. Each series contains an earth sciencecomponent, which has been incorporated in one of three different ways:

TABLE 3Teaching Materials Aimed at the Earth Science Content of the NationalCurriculum for Science

Teaching Material Comment

NCC, 1989 Contains a section specific to earth science,since the NCC was aware of the poorbackgrounds of teachers in this area.

ESTA, 1990–1993; King & Kennett, 1998 Units of pupil worksheets with teacherguidance, with a practical/investigationalfocus; 12 packs, each of three units.

Brannlund, 1991; Brannlund & Rhodes, Pupil worksheets with teacher guidance,1995 again with a practical focus.

Tuke, 1991 Pupils worksheets with teacher guidancecontaining a range of practical activities.

Whitehead, 1993 One of the four subject specialist “readers” inthe Coordinated Science series.

NCC, 1993b A handbook designed to help science teachersdeliver earth science professional develop-ment (INSET) to their colleagues in schools.

ESTA, 1995–1998; King & Kennett, 1998 Booklets of earth science activities written forteachers to be adapted for use with pupils.


a. Some publications have yearly readers that include a range of science topics for1 year and may have a chapter on earth science (e.g.,Active Sciencepublished byCollins).

b. Others have books aimed at the different Attainment Targets, so that the geologicalearth science components usually appear in the chemistry-related books (e.g.,NelsonBalanced Science, published by Nelson).

c. A few others have separate earth science course books within a series on differenttopic areas (e.g.,The Earth, part of the Oxford Coordinated Science series publishedby Oxford University Press).

Initially the earth science topics in the books tended to be superficial and error-prone (seeArthur, 1996), having clearly not been checked by anyone with earth science expertise.More recent publications are better, but still tend not to have the depth of content of theother areas of science included. Discussions with various professionals (textbook writers,examiners and Examination Board officials, government agency officials, teacher educators,and teachers), over the years suggest a number of reasons for this:

• The amount of earth science in the NCS (c. 8%) is small, so it is given low priorityand little space in textbooks.

• The statements in the NCS relating to earth science are poorly understood (cf. recentpersonal communication with Examination Boards, government agency officials, andpublishers).

• Textbook writers and editors are usually specialists in biology, chemistry, or physicsand have little or no earth science in their own backgrounds, so they are prone tomisconception.

• Without a proper background and “feel” for an area of science, it is difficult to teach orto write about it in a way that demonstrates its background, scope, importance, rami-fications, links to other areas of science, or the way in which scientific investigationsin that area are conducted.

The Teacher Survey---Methodology

The survey was conducted to gauge teacher perception of the effectiveness of their earthscience teaching, to identify issues that might affect this effectiveness and to gather back-ground data that would underpin the development of strategies to improve the effectivenessof the teaching. Since teacher perception is likely to be idiosyncratic, particularly for a “new”area of syllabus content where backgrounds, experiences, and influences differ widely, abreadth of data was required. A questionnaire was used to collect this breadth of data,containing questions in the following categories.

Teaching context:Age, gender, questions to show if the school was in a “good” area (goodexam results, low take-up of free school meals) or in a “difficult” area (poor results, manyfree meals).

Your science background:Questions to establish the specialism of the teacher and his/herearth science background.

Earth science teaching—your perspective:Questions on a range of earth science teachingissues including, age of pupils taught, the teacher’s confidence and enjoyment, and theirviews of pupil interest and achievement, and content of practical-, investigational, andfieldwork in lessons.

646 KING

Earth science teaching—your scheme of work:Questions on how the science scheme ofwork, with its earth science component was devised.

Earth science teaching—the most helpful support:Questions to establish which resourceswere most commonly used, including textbooks, TV programmes, INSET (professionaldevelopment), and support from colleagues.

More support for your earth science teaching?A final question asking, in the light ofprevious questions, whether the teacher would welcome more support of the type listedpreviously (materials, INSET, etc.).

Most questions asked for views on a Likert scale from 1 (high) to 5 (low). The questionson “the most helpful support” asked teachers to select the resources they found most usefulfrom a list. Additional written comments were invited that gave extra depth to some of theanswers.

An initial pilot survey was carried out to test the questionnaire questions, the methodof distributing and collecting the questionnaires, and the ease and effectiveness of thedata processing. The pilot questionnaire was sent to selected Keele Secondary Partnershipschools (schools linked for teacher education purposes to the Education Department atKeele University). In each school, the science teacher linked most closely to Keele (thescience mentor) was asked to invite all colleagues who were teaching NCS earth science,whether willingly or reluctantly, to complete copies of the questionnaire and return them.The mentor was also asked to comment on the approach being used.

The survey showed that asking a mentor to distribute and collect and return the ques-tionnaires was effective in that most mentors returned questionnaires from most of the staffteaching earth science. One case of a teacher deliberately throwing away the questionnaireto illustrate what he thought about the earth science content was reported. Others failed to re-turn the questionnaire for what were thought to be similar reasons. The few comments frommentors received indicated that the strategy for distribution and collection of questionnaireswas successful.

The questionnaire was modified slightly to give extra clarity to some questions and forease of manipulating the data, and it was changed from a “tick the box” form to one thatcould be optically marked.

Following the pilot survey (in the Keele area of the north Midlands), the revised ques-tionnaire was circulated to mentors in further Keele Partnership schools. Mentors in otherschools in north west England (associated with the Manchester Metropolitan UniversityPartnership), central southern England (through the Bath and Reading University EducationDepartment Partnerships), and South Wales (Swansea University Education Partnership)were invited to take part in a similar way.

The total number of questionnaires circulated is unknown, since it depended on howmany partnership schools were circulated by the central institutions in each area, how manyteachers taught earth science in each school and how many of these were willing to respond.However, 164 questionnaires were returned, enough to provide a broad spectrum of schoolsand teachers.

THE TEACHER SURVEY---RESULTS

Responses to the early questions in the questionnaire showed the wide cross section ofschools and teachers that responded. The schools ranged from those with high examinationsuccess rates and little social deprivation to those at the opposite end of the scale. The teach-ers had a variety of ages and years of teaching experience; 57% were male and 43% female.


The main teaching subject of the teachers of NCS earth science is shown in Table 4. AtKS3 level (11- to 14-year-olds), there were roughly equal numbers of biology, chemistry,and physics specialists and very few teachers with a geology background. At KS4 (14-to 16-year-olds), despite the preponderance of chemistry specialists, anticipated becausemuch of the NCS earth science was allied to chemistry topics in the 1995 version of theNCS, significant numbers of biology and physics specialists were also involved. None ofthe geology specialists were teaching at this level. Table 5 shows that nearly two thirdsof the teachers had been taught no earth science during their education, while most of theremainder had received only a little.

The results that provide insight into the perception that teachers have of their earth scienceteaching, are presented in Table 6. The mean responses to the questions on teaching arestatistically similar and show moderate views, i.e., a moderate background knowledge (meanof 3.0 on the 1–5 Likert scale), moderate confidence (mean of 2.7), moderate enjoyment(mean of 2.9), and a slightly lower view of the importance of earth science (mean of 3.2).

Questions concerning the effects on pupils (E and F in Table 6) are also statistically fairlysimilar and indicate a moderate level of pupil interest (mean of 2.9) and a slightly higherview of pupil achievement (mean of 2.6).

Questions G–I in Table 6 relate to practical, investigational, and fieldwork. Practical workforms an important element of science teaching in Britain, with the majority of sciencelessons taking place in laboratories and most of these involving practical work. Duringthe early days of the implementation of the NCS, the National Curriculum Council (thegovernment body responsible for the curriculum at that time) published a guide to theteaching of science at key stages 3 and 4 (for 11- to 16-year-olds) (NCC, 1993a). In thesection on “scientific investigations” they observed that “Practical work has a central placein science” (p. 14) and identified four basic types of practical work as those concerning basicskills, observations, illustrations, and investigations. The section then went on to distinguishinvestigational work from the other forms of practical to clarify the new emphasis the NCSwas putting on investigational work. As a result of this guide and discussions that followed,most science teachers in Britain would now define practical work as any laboratory activityinvolving apparatus, carried out by pupils, teacher, or both. Investigational work, in NCSterms, is a form of practical work that involves planning, carrying out, and reporting on aninvestigation into some form of scientific problem. Most investigational work is carried outin a laboratory, although it could be done in a fieldwork context. The fieldwork tradition inthe teaching of KS3/4 science is not strong but is more likely to be carried out by biologyspecialist teachers than by chemistry or physics specialists. Rarely is fieldwork conductedoutside the school grounds.

TABLE 4The Main Science Teaching Subject of Surveyed Teachers ( n = 164)

Main Science Teachers of 11- to Teachers of 14- toTeaching 14-year-olds (%) 16-year-olds (%)Subject All teachers (%) (Key Stage 3) (Key Stage 4)

Biology 26.9 32.1 18.2Chemistry 42.8 33.2 59.1

Physics 26.3 31.0 18.2Geology 1.0 1.6 0.0

Other 3.0 2.1 4.5Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

648 KING

TABLE 5The Earth Science Education of the Surveyed Teachers ( n = 164)

Elements of Earth Science Educationin the Teachers Surveyed Numbers of teachers

Degree in earth science 7Degree contained and earth science component 10Degree contained some earth science content 12Degree contained no earth science 31Some earth science learned in schoolDegree contained no earth science 104No earth science learned in school

Questions G–I produced fairly negative responses with negative skewness. Practical workcontent is relatively low (mean of 3.4), investigational work a good deal lower (mean of4.4), and fieldwork even lower (mean of 4.7) with the great majority of teachers indicatingthat they carry out no fieldwork in earth science.

The final question in the survey (Question J in Table 6) asked the teachers for their interestin obtaining further support for their earth science teaching (the different types of supportthat might be available had been listed previously in the survey). The response was verypositive (mean of 2.0 with a strong positive skew). Fifty percent of the teachers indicated ahigh level of interest in obtaining further support.

Figure 1 shows the sources of information and support that the teachers found mosthelpful. They recorded that the two most valuable areas of support were textbooks writtenspecifically for broad science courses and their own science colleagues. The data showsthat 25% of the teachers had used KS3 (11- to 14-year-old) science textbooks, 15% hadused KS4 (14- to 16-year-old) science textbooks, and 29% had used other science coursebooks. Considered together, these figures show a high dependence on science textbookswritten for pupils. This relates closely to the findings of Dillon et al. (2000) that a highpercentage (89%) of secondary science teachers reported that they “often” used set text-books. The survey data also shows that 46% of teachers had found assistance from sciencecolleagues to be one of the most helpful supports to their earth science teaching; a lowerpercentage (20%) had consulted the expertise of their geography colleagues. Dillon et al.(2000) report a high dependence on advice from colleagues that also accords with thesefindings.

The use of textbooks and worksheets specifically written for teaching NCS earth science,which would include those listed in Table 3, was low (23% of teachers had used them) andthe use of geology textbooks was even lower (10%). Some of the teachers had used populargeology books (10%) while others found popular TV programmes on geology helpful(21%). Only a few had used distance learning materials or TV programmes provided bythe Open University and even fewer had used the published government materials listedin Table 3. The attendance at local or national professional development events (INSET)for the teaching of NCS earth science was very low indeed (4%). Dillon et al. (2000)also recorded that “teachers made little use of the third party support that was available tothem” (p. 7), where “third party support” included material provided by industry, museums,teaching associations, and government agencies and the advice and training associated withthe material.

The questions on the questionnaire relating to the earth science content of schemes ofwork showed no overall pattern and so they have not been analyzed here.

TE

AC

HE

RS

’R

ES

PO

NS

ETO

NE

WS

UB

JEC

TA

RE

AS

649

TABLE 6Views of the Surveyed Teachers ( n = 164)

No. of Responseson a Likert Scale

1 5 Total No. of Mean Standard Pearson’sArea Question (High) 2 3 4 (Low) Responses Responses Deviation Skewness

Views on teaching A. What is your background 26 26 59 29 24 164 3.0 1.25 0.00knowledge of earth science inthe National Curriculum?

B. How confident do you feel in 26 45 50 30 11 162 2.7 1.14 −0.24teaching National Curriculumearth science?

C. How much do you enjoy teaching 19 47 49 26 23 164 2.9 1.21 −0.07the earth science in the NationalCurriculum?

D. What do you feel is the overall 6 27 70 40 13 156 3.2 0.94 +0.18importance of earth science to theNational Curriculum for Science ?

Effect on pupils E. What do you feel is the level of 8 41 75 32 5 161 2.9 0.88 −0.11interest of the pupils in the earthscience you teach?

F. What is the general pupil 4 65 72 13 2 156 2.6 0.74 −0.50achievement in the earth sciencetopics you teach?

Practical, etc. content G. How much practical work is included 6 29 43 63 21 162 3.4 1.04 −0.58in the earth science you teach?

H. How much NCS investigational 1 5 15 37 77 135 4.4 0.87 −0.73work is included in the earthscience you teach?

I. How much fieldwork is included 4 2 6 16 132 160 4.7 0.82 −0.38in the earth science you teach?(high = one full day +, low = none)

Interest in more J. When more support teaching earth 58 23 21 8 6 116 2.0 1.19 +0.82support science is provided on the basis of

this research, what would be yourinterest in obtaining this support?

n = 116; some questionnaires did not contain question J.

650 KING

Figure 1. Responses to the question “Which of the following have you found helpful in your earth science teachingso far?” (n= 146).

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

Possible Bias in the Data Collection

The data collected may have been biased by the relatively small sample (n = 164), the factthat only schools in partnerships with teacher education institutions were used, the fact thatresponses depended on the goodwill of the science mentors in the schools that participated,to distribute, collect, and return the questionnaires, and the fact that completion of thequestionnaires depended on the goodwill of the teachers involved. However, the objectiveof the survey was to obtain a “feel” for the way in which the NCS earth science componentwas being viewed and dealt with in schools. Since a wide range of schools and teachersresponded and expressed a variety of perspectives and views, this provides a valid basis fordiscussion.

Subject Specialisms of Earth Science Teachers

In UK schools, part of the teaching of most secondary science teachers is at KS3 level(11- to 14-year-olds) and so the roughly equal proportions of biology, chemistry, andphysics specialists teaching the earth science component at KS3 level shown in Table 4was anticipated. Since the earth science component of the NCS at KS4 has been largelylinked to the chemistry content, it was anticipated that it would be taught mostly by teach-ers with a chemistry background at that level, so the relatively high numbers of physicsand biology specialists involved was surprising. This may reflect the fact that in someschool situations, those teachers most interested in teaching earth science were allowed todo so.

There are few geology specialists teaching earth science in schools (Table 5). All ofthose surveyed were teaching earth science at KS3 level but it was surprising that nonewere involved in the teaching of the more complex KS4 earth science material.


Teacher Perception of the Effectiveness of their Earth ScienceTeaching

The survey sought to gauge teacher perception of the effectiveness of their earth scienceteaching and to identify issues that might affect this effectiveness.

Question A in Table 6 showed that teachers consider their background knowledge ofearth science in the National Curriculum to be moderate (mean of 3.0). This is a surprisingfinding in view of the poor earth science backgrounds of most of the teachers (shown inTable 5) and the fact that they use as their main sources of support, textbooks produced forpupils and their own science colleagues (Fig. 1).

The quality of the earth science coverage in science textbooks in the United Kingdomis variable with some containing errors, omissions, and poorly presented content (Fisher,1992a; Arthur, 1996; King, 2000). This poor quality of coverage is reinforced by the errors,omissions, and oversimplifications in some science syllabuses and examinations, describedpreviously (King et al., 1999).

The science colleagues of the teachers surveyed are likely to have equally poor back-grounds in earth science and so the advice they receive may be poor as well.

When science teachers attending workshops on plate tectonics in a recent survey wereasked questions testing their background knowledge of the subject, 75% of the answers con-tained errors and 44% contained two or more errors and showed significant misconceptions(King, 2000).

Oversby (1996), in a study of students of different ages that included secondary schoolstudents, found “a wide range in knowledge and understanding of earth science concepts”and concluded “These results demonstrate a need for more in-service training of scienceteachers in the earth sciences” (p. 78).

All these factors indicate that the earth science background knowledge of the teachers isgenerally poor, not moderate, as many indicated in the survey. The teachers therefore areshowing a false sense of security.

In responding to Questions B and C (Table 6) the teachers expressed moderate confidence(mean of 2.7) and enjoyment (mean of 2.9) in their teaching but some of this confidencemay be misplaced, as shown above. However, in view of the lack of earth science in theeducational backgrounds of most of the teachers, the fact that they regard the earth scienceof moderate importance was a surprisingly high finding (Question D, mean of 3.2). This isfairly reassuring to those seeking to retain earth science in the NCS in the longer term.

Pupil interest and general pupil achievement in earth science topics were consideredmoderate as well (Questions E, mean of 2.9; Question F, mean of 2.6), but the views onachievement are misplaced in view of government reports on Key Stage 3 tests (for 14-year-olds) in recent years. These reports review pupil performance in the national curriculum testsin science across England and Wales and include the following comments: “Pupils had par-ticular difficulty answering questions about . . . earth science” (SCAA, 1994); “Questionsassessing pupils’ knowledge and understanding of geological changes have not been donewell in previous years. In 1996, the questions on this area of the programme of study againproved demanding . . . a large number did not respond, suggesting that overall, pupils arestill not familiar with this part of the programme of study . . . ” (SCAA, 1996); “Questionson earth science have been poorly answered in previous years tests. In 1998 . . . pupils’responses showed improved understanding. However, this question was less demandingthan in previous years” (QCA, 1998).

The relatively low practical work content, the lower investigational content, and thegeneral lack of fieldwork (Question G, mean of 3.4; Question H, mean of 4.4; QuestionI, mean of 4.7) may be linked to either the “insecurity of having to teach beyond the

652 KING

science specialism[s] in which they were trained,” or “by the perceived difficulty of devisingappropriate practical work . . . ” identified by Jenkins (2000). He quotes one teacher “ . . . thelack of practical work (in earth science) demotivates many pupils” (p. 330). The low levelsof practical work may also reflect the findings of Hacker and Rowe (1997) who showed thatone of the effects of the NCS in schools was the general increase in content and reductionin use of practical approaches. In a climate of practical work reduction, practical work fora “new” subject area would not be developed with any enthusiasm.

Another factor in the relatively low levels of practical work may be the findings from astudy that focused on the teaching of earth and space science in the United States. Barba andRubba (1993) showed statistically significant differences in the practical problem-solvingabilities of expert and novice teachers. The experienced teachers possessed mental structuresthat allowed them to bring higher-level skills to bear on the problems, so that they weremore frequently solved. The fact that the novices found practical problem-solving situationsdifficult, with the novices forming the majority of the teaching force, was thought to be afactor in the observed decline in the numbers of earth and space science practical sessions.

This work indicates that the low levels of practical work may be because of the increasedcontent of the NCS and to the lack of earth science background of the teachers. They maynot have a good enough “feel” for the earth science material to appreciate the value ofpractical activities; they may not be aware of the range of practical activities and teachingstrategies available; there may be so little time allocated to earth science teaching thattime-consuming practical activities become impossible or they may simply be attemptingto disguise their lack of earth science knowledge and understanding by adopting a didacticapproach as opposed to an investigational approach. It may also be that the curriculummaterials that they have available do not encourage a practical approach. Figure 1 showsthe low level of usage of NCS earth science worksheets that contain practical approaches(17%) and the low attendance at professional development courses (4%) where these mightbe developed. The net effect of this is that pupils are likely to find their earth science lessonsto be more “chalk and talk” than other more “normal” science lessons; they are less likelyto be enthused.

Figure 1 also shows that the support of geography colleagues has been utilized a good dealless than that of science colleagues. As noted above, in many UK schools, those teacherswho have shown most interest and enthusiasm for earth science over many years have beengeography teachers.

As the responses to Question J (Table 6) indicate, the teachers strongly recognize theneed for more support for their earth science teaching. The most appropriate form for thissupport, in the light of the survey evidence, will be discussed below.

A Summary of Key Issues Raised by the Survey and Other Data

Key issues from the data may be summarized as follows:

• While science teachers currently teaching earth science feel that their backgroundknowledge is moderate, the survey data shows it is poor.

• The teachers consider that the achievement of their pupils in earth science is moderatewhile evidence from national testing shows it is poor.

• The content of practical, investigational, and fieldwork in earth science courses islow.

• The main form of written material that teachers use to support their earth scienceteaching is science textbooks written for 11- to 16-year-old pupils. Geology and


earth science texts and specially prepared earth science teaching materials are usedmuch less frequently.

• Many science teachers use their science colleagues for support when these colleaguesmay have equally poor earth science backgrounds. Expertise of geography colleaguesis used less frequently.

• The majority of the teachers surveyed are interested in receiving more support fortheir earth science teaching.

These points indicate a number of key issues for consideration in the future developmentof earth science education in England and Wales.

FUTURE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD AFFECTTHE EARTH SCIENCE TEACHING SITUATION

In 1995 the UK government declared a 5-year moratorium on changes to the Na-tional Curriculum, including the NCS. This followed the many changes of the previous5 years and the low morale in the teaching profession that had resulted from the per-ception of constant change. Curriculum 2000, the new National Curriculum prepared atthe end of the 5-year moratorium was implemented from September 2000 onwards. Ithad been reorganized to some extent, but the overall content was little changed from theprevious version. Thus there is anticipation that a larger scale reevaluation, with greaterchange resulting from it, may take place in 2005. Publications that have sought to in-fluence a potential new science curriculum in 2005 include the Association for ScienceEducation’sScience Education for the Year 2000 and Beyond(ASE, 1999) andBeyond2000: Science Education for the Future, a report from a seminar series funded by theNuffield Foundation (Miller & Osborne, 1998). The development of the science curricu-lum that would be necessitated by implementing any major changes would be far reach-ing and would affect the teaching of earth science. The following possibilities could beenvisaged.

A Science Curriculum Focused on “Scientific Literacy”

Both these documents argue for a move towards greater scientific literacy so that scienceteaching becomes more closely focused on preparing all children for life in the scientificand technological world, and is not just aimed at those who seek to become the scientistsof the future. A scientifically literate student, on leaving school should be “comfortable,competent and confident with scientific and technical matters . . . ” (Miller & Osborne, 1998,page 9). The curriculum should provide students with the knowledge and understanding toread newspaper articles, follow TV programmes, and enter debates about science (Miller& Osborne, 1998).

Moves towards basing the science curriculum on scientific literacy have been taking placein other countries as well. In the United States,Science for all Americans(AAAS, 1989),the consensus document on the development of the American science curriculum, madea strong case that scientific literacy was a reachable goal for all students and detailed themany facets involved. This move has more recently been followed up in the United Statesby the publication of theNational Science Education Standards(NRC, 1996) that also hasscientific literacy as its guiding philosophy. A recent comparative survey of scientific literacyacross 17 countries in North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australasia hasconcluded that scientific literacy is a major aim of the countries surveyed (Takemura, 1999).Since future newspaper discussion, TV programmes, and scientific debates will include

654 KING

those related to earth science, an earth science component is likely to play an important partin a curriculum for scientific literacy.

An Approach to the Science Curriculum Using “ExplanatoryStories”

TheBeyond 2000: Science Education for the Futuredocument (Miller & Osborne, 1998)sees science as a set of major ideas about the Earth and how it behaves and states thatthe narrative approach is one of the most effective ways of teaching about these ideas. Itsuggests a number of “explanatory stories,” appropriate for covering the science curriculum,that would introduce the major ideas of science to pupils, together with the ramifications thatthe ideas have for science today. Appropriate stories relating to earth science that might bedealt with in this way include the development of our understanding of the dynamic Earth’scrust and how the theory of plate tectonics has provided key insights into many earthphenomena. Inclusion of such stories would highlight the contribution of earth science tothe understanding of scientific processes on Earth and their importance for the future of theplanet.

An Approach to the Science Curriculum Through System Science

The system science approach views the Earth as a system comprising many subsystemsthat is itself a subsystem of a larger system (Mayer & Kumano, 1999). A system scienceapproach to the science curriculum uses study of the Earth system as a unifying concept.System science encompasses a breadth of scientific methodologies and illustrates how theseprovide explanations of scientific processes. It incorporates an aesthetic view of the planetand the impact of humans and of technology on planetary processes and their effects today.It involves the integration of biology, chemistry, physics, and other areas of science intothe broad study of key processes at all scales from supraglobal to subatomic. Earth andecological sciences play prominent roles in these studies. System science approaches arebeing developed in a number of countries and for various levels of students (see relevantabstracts in Fortner and Mayer, 1998). They provide a global perspective to scientific literacyand a means of reviewing the science curriculum for the aspects that have most impact onthe quality of life and environmental issues at all scales.

A Strengthening of Environmental Aspects of the ScienceCurriculum

Throughout the discussions and implementation of the NCS, environmental scientistshave lobbied for environmental issues to be included in the curriculum. They have beensuccessful in the NCG where one of the strands, until the recent revision, was EnvironmentalGeography. The Curriculum 2000 revision no longer contains strands, but environmentalissues still play a key role in geography (QCA, 1999a). However, geography is not acompulsory part of the curriculum for pupils beyond the age of 14. Environmental educationhas also been one of the five cross-curricular themes to the National Curriculum in Englandand Wales detailed in documents relating to the National Curriculum as a whole (e.g. NCC,1992, p. 16).

In science the environmental component has been dealt with in a very similar way toearth science over the years. It formed a thread of its own in the first mandatory version ofthe NCS. It then became associated with earth science in a proposed Earth and environmentstrand (see below) before the second and subsequent mandatory versions adopted the fourstrand model (Table 1, DES 1991b). In the four strand model, environmental science has


always been part of the strand that is largely biology and, as a result, it has acquired astrong ecological flavor. Currently global environmental issues such as the greenhouseeffect or holes in the ozone layer are not mentioned in the NCS anywhere by name. Insteadthe environment is covered by broad phrases such as “Pupils should be taught about theimportance of sustainable development” (biology-related strand at KS4 for 14- to 16-year-olds). Environmental perspectives are also referred to in the “Scientific Enquiry” strand andin sections referring to breadth of study.

If the environment were stressed more strongly in the content strands of the NCS thenlocal and global environmental issues and the Earth processes that affect them would becomemuch more prominent, as would the breadth of scientific investigation necessary in tacklingsuch issues.

A Change in the Number of Strands of the National Curriculumfor Science in England and Wales

The first mandatory version of the NSC in England and Wales contained 17 strands ofwhich three related to Earth and space science (Table 1, DES 1989). The second mandatoryversion reduced the number of strands to only four (DES, 1991b); the first strand con-cerned scientific investigation and the remaining three were broadly biology, chemistry,and physics. The current curriculum retains the four strand model (QCA, 1999b). Duringthe discussions leading to the second version, a government consultation document wasprepared that contained a fifth strand, “Earth and Environment” (DES, 1991a). Separatingthe earth science components from the “traditional” areas of science in this way is far fromideal for those seeking an integrated scientific perspective. However, it would at least haveallowed the teachers with most interest in those areas to teach them and it gave the materialmore coherence and a higher profile than in the four strand model.

Removal of the Earth Science Component

While removal of the earth science component might please those teachers surveyed whoexpressed low confidence and enjoyment in earth science teaching, as well as the chemistryteachers, recorded by Jenkins (2000), who hold the “belief that topics drawn from earthscience have been included in the national curriculum at the expense of chemical topics . . . ,”it would be opposed by all those who espouse “broad and balanced” science and those whoseek broad scientific literacy amongst pupils. Throughout the National Science Curriculumdebate, the science educators involved have seen the breadth and balance of the sciencecurriculum as a central feature (see ASE, 1979; ASE 1981; DES, 1985; Royal Society, 1986;DES 1987 as well as the different versions of the NCS and their consultation documents).Loss of the earth science would not only remove earth science content but also the approachto scientific methodology used in earth science study. The scope for the development ofscientific understanding through study of, for example, geological time (“deep” time) andthe theory of plate tectonics would be lost as well. Meanwhile earth science continues toform an important element in the science curriculum of many countries across the world(see Clark, 1999).

In the Interim

The possible curriculum changes discussed above, apart from the final one, would increasethe profile of earth science and the relative importance of the earth science material in theminds of teachers. However, if such changes do take place they will not happen for severalyears and there are issues of earth science education to be addressed meanwhile. Even

656 KING

if large scale changes in the NCS in the United Kingdom are eventually implemented,the approach to earth science teaching current in many schools may not change unlessprofessional development of the types described below are instituted.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSINGTHE EARTH SCIENCE TEACHING SITUATION

Developing Strategies to Improve the Effectiveness of the EarthScience Teaching---Background Data

The issues for teachers of the earth science component of the NCS can all be addressedthrough professional development. Indeed, the strongest response from the teacher surveywas from the 50% who expressed a “high” level of interest in obtaining further support fortheir earth science teaching. A further 20% indicated a “2,” and 18% a “3” on the Likertscale of interest (Table 6, Question J, mean of 2.0).

This reflects their poor earth science backgrounds, a realization that their earth scienceteaching could be improved, and the general desire for more INSET on subject knowledge,pedagogy, pupil learning, and classroom management (recorded by Dillon et al., 2000). Itmay also be a reflection of the findings of Orion and Thompson (1996), who found thatexperienced teachers valued the teacher education with which they were provided highly.Indeed, they valued it much more highly than the majority of postgraduate students onteacher education courses.

Despite their desire for support in earth science teaching, the teachers surveyed had notattended professional development courses in earth science education (INSET) in any num-bers. This may be because they were not aware that INSET courses were available or therewas not the funding or incentive to attend them. However, INSET courses have regularlybeen provided in recent years during regional and national conferences for science teach-ers in the United Kingdom (e.g., national and regional Association for Science Educationconferences and the annual Earth Science Teachers’ Association conference).

One of the solutions to the problems identified would be the provision of wide scaleINSET at low cost to encourage high participation rates. In devising effective INSET, theguidance produced by Kennedy (1998) on the level of background understanding neededby teachers faced with teaching new subject matter needs to be taken into account, sinceteachers should “be able to do more than recite subject knowledge.” They need to gain afirm understanding of the concepts involved, relate them to teaching strategies and thenapply them effectively in the laboratory and classroom. Kennedy’s report (1998) lists thefollowing as key components of the teacher education that should be provided.

1. Conceptual understanding of the subject matter involving: a sense of proportion,understanding of the “big ideas,” highlighting the relationships between ideas, pro-viding detailed knowledge, and encouraging reasoning ability.

2. Pedagogical content knowledge, enabling conceptual understandings to be translatedinto pupil understanding.

3. Epistemological understanding, so that teachers know how research in that area ofscience proceeds—usually in an awkward, stumbling manner.

4. Positive attitudes towards the new material they are teaching should be developed,so that the new material is presented with enthusiasm and commitment.

Kennedy argues that these approaches will enable teachers to develop scientific under-standing in their pupils and allow them to become scientifically literate citizens, able tomake decisions, and weigh claims effectively.


Dillon et al. (2000) found that the INSET currently provided to science teachers in Britainneeded to be more classroom focused, more closely focused on individual needs, includemore practical activity, and more interaction with other teachers. Such attributes should becore considerations in development of the process of continual professional developmentadvocated by the Council for Science and Technology report (CST, 2000) based on thefindings of Dillon et al. (2000).

Appleton (1995) has addressed the issue of teacher confidence in teaching new material inthe context of primary science taught in Queensland, Australia. He concluded that disciplineknowledge must be taught, and taught in a way that gives teachers a positive self-image;without this, it may do more harm than good. He recommends teaching in small groupsrather than in large lecture theatres, to this end. This study gives important insights intohow INSET should be designed to teach new content material successfully.

However, professional development courses alone may not have the desired effects, sinceJimenez-Aleixandre and Puig (1995) have reported, in the context of the Spanish NationalScience Curriculum which was new at that time, that the great number of courses provided bythe government was useful in disseminating knowledge. However, they were less effectivein changing classroom practice where, “another type of effort is needed” (p. 435). Thissupports the findings of Joyce and Showers (1984) who, in a study of a range of curriculuminitiatives in different subject areas, determined that the ones that were most successful inchanging classroom practice and so affecting examination results were those in which theINSET providers visited schools to coach teachers in classrooms/laboratories.

Not only is INSET required for practising science teachers, but effective earth scienceinput is also required to all those preservice education (PGCE) courses that prepare newentrants to the secondary science teaching profession. Since earth science in the NCS is asnew to secondary science teacher educators as it is to teachers, the likelihood is that, whereearth science inputs are provided, they will be of low quality in most institutions. Thisview is borne out by anecdotal evidence. So effective INSET equally should be provided toscience teacher educators.

The survey also showed that the teachers have generally not used specially publishedmaterials for the teaching of NCS earth science. This may be because they were not awareof these materials, there was a lack of funds to buy them, or because of their perceivedlack of quality or usefulness. The value of new teaching materials in curriculum changeis stressed by Roberts (1995) who found that that specially commissioned textbooks andsupport materials were “very reassuring” to teachers in US schools because unfamiliarmaterial was no longer “unhelpfully remote and disconnected.” So in some way, effectiveteaching materials should be brought to teachers and teacher educators and their use beencouraged by INSET.

Developing Strategies to Improve the Effectiveness of the EarthScience Teaching---A Model Based on the BackgroundData from the Survey and Other Sources

What is an effective way of delivering earth science teaching support in the light of thisdata? The model described below takes account of the data and views noted above. It isalso based on many years of experience of presenters in delivering earth science INSETin situations ranging from small local groups to national and international conferences (inEurope, America, and Australasia). The judgement of value and effectiveness is made onthe number of occasions a presenter is invited to return, the numbers of participants thattake part and their verbal and written feedback during and after workshops. Key factorsseem to be to

658 KING

• deliver the INSET in a “workshop” situation in which the participants work in groupsand play key roles (see Appleton, 1995; Dillon et al., 2000).

• focus workshops clearly on the relevant statements from the NCS and make sure thatthese are properly understood.

• ensure that for UK science teachers there are practical elements, since they are familiarwith laboratory practical work (see Fisher, 1996, p. 359; Dillon et al., 2000).

• employ a spectrum of types of practical work (appropriate types are listed byThompson, 1999b).

• use readily available apparatus and materials for practical work, so that the activitiescan easily be translated into school laboratories.

• where possible, begin workshops with the practical activities to “break the ice” andto encourage group discussion and investigation.

• include a range of ideas and strategies in workshops.• make the links between different ideas and concepts as clear as possible (see Kennedy,

1998).• emphasize the “detective approach,” a valuable way of investigating many earth

science problems (Fisher, 1992b, p. 145; Fisher, 1993).• develop workshops from concepts with which the participants are familiar, such as

“the rock cycle,” or “plate tectonics.”• where possible, adopt a “growth of knowledge framework” by approaching a concept

such as “plate tectonics” through the historical “detective story” by which scientistsevolved the theory (see Duschl, 1990).

• attempt to build on the biology, chemistry, or physics subject knowledge of the subjectspecialist teachers present (see Fisher, 1992b, 1996).

• use each of the activities to reinforce current knowledge and then to extend thatknowledge and understanding to higher levels.

• give opportunities for plenary discussion during which critical issues can be dealtwith and key points made including how the material can best be utilized with pupilsin classrooms/laboratories (see Kennedy, 1998; Dillon et al., 2000).

• provide the participants with information to take away so that they can carry out theactivities and read the explanations later.

• provide the written information in a form that is easily translated for pupils, suchas those in theScience of the Earthpublications described by King and Kennett(1998).

This pragmatic approach encapsulates the views of Kennedy, Dillon et al., and Appleton,described above and has generally been well received by participants including practisingteachers, teacher educators, and preservice teachers (students in initial teacher training).

Implementing the Model---A Pilot Programme

It would be preferable if such a strategy were funded and implemented by government.Since this proved not to be possible in the United Kingdom, funding and support weresought elsewhere and an industrial sponsor was found that enabled a pilot programme tobe carried out.

The pilot programme was devised and funded (by the UK Offshore Operators Association,UKOOA—The Umbrella Organisation for the Offshore Oil Industry in the United Kingdom)to offer the services of earth science educators at minimal cost to schools, regional meetingsof science teachers, and to teacher education institutions. Through the programme, thepresenters provide 90 min, practically based workshops aimed at the earth science content


of the NCS. Participants asked to evaluate the INSET on a 1 (high) to 5 (low) Likert scalehave indicated that the mean level of the workshop effectiveness is 1.44, of interest is 1.45,of relevance is 1.42, and of value is 1.49 (n = 601). These very positive statistics have beensupported by numerous positive written comments as well. They not only demonstrate theeffectiveness of the workshop presentations, but also a real need for knowledge, effectiveteaching strategies, and confidence in the participants.

On the basis of the successful pilot programme, the longer term plan seeks to establishregional presenters to provide low cost professional development workshops in earth scienceto secondary schools across the United Kingdom. Monitoring of the effectiveness of theworkshops will continue and a system for evaluating the effects of the teacher INSET onschools and pupils will be instituted.

CONCLUSION

The Introduction of New Areas of Content ThroughA National Curriculum

National curricula have been implemented in a number of countries across the world andin most situations and most subject areas this has meant the reorganization and realignmentof the existing subject content. It is unusual for new content to be introduced througha National Curriculum. However, this was the case when the National Curriculum forScience (NCS) was first instituted in England and Wales, since it contained a componentof earth science, an area that was new to most teachers. This study has explored the effectsof introducing new material through a National Curriculum in this way, 10 years after itsfirst introduction. Through the views of some of the teachers involved, and the results ofother studies, it has outlined the current situation in secondary (11- to 16-year-old) schoolswith respect to this “new” content. Where problems have been identified it has suggestedremedies, either through the reorganization of the whole National Science Curriculum orthrough professional development.

The study will provide useful background to those seeking to introduce new curriculummaterial in any subject area across the world. Where new elements of science such as earthscience have been introduced in this way, it should prove to be of particular value. Theremedies suggested to the problems identified should be applicable in a range of differentnational and international situations.

The Experience of Science Teachers in England and Wales

Science teachers in England and Wales have been teaching the earth science material thatwas new to them for up to 10 years. Although the government published two documentsof support materials during this time they did not provide any other form of professionaldevelopment. The government support materials have not been widely used and neitherhave support materials published by other organizations.

The evidence from the questionnaire survey and comparison of that evidence with othersources of data revealed that

• while the teachers feel their background knowledge of earth science is moderate, thedata indicates it is poor.

• they consider that the achievement of their pupils is moderate while evidence fromnational testing shows it is poor.

• content of practical, investigational, and fieldwork in earth science courses is low.

660 KING

• teachers mainly use science textbooks written for 11- to 16-year-old pupils to supporttheir earth science teaching, specialist texts are used much less frequently.

• science colleagues provide an important element of support (many of whom haveequally poor earth science backgrounds), expertise of geography colleagues is usedless frequently.

• the large majority of the teachers are interested in receiving more support for theirearth science teaching.

These findings point towards a similar general conclusion; that teachers have an overcon-fidence in their assessment of their own background knowledge and of the achievementof their pupils and that the sources of support they are using are often inappropriate. Thiscould be paraphrased in general terms as, “not only don’t they know, they don’t know whatthey don’t know.”

The survey and other data also showed that the teachers, in general should not be blamedfor this. In view of their poor backgrounds, they have been provided with inadequate supportthrough written materials and inadequate professional development opportunities.

Thus it is clear that when new material is introduced through a National Curriculum inthis way, poor support will lead to inadequacies in teaching and learning.

Responses to Problems in the Teaching and Learning of “New”National Curriculum Content

Responses are possible at two levels, either the curriculum can be changed or moreeffective support and encouragement can be provided. A combination of these two responseswould be most effective.

In the case of the earth science content of the NCS, possible curriculum responses includethe following:

• Change the focus of the NCS to embrace scientific literacy; this would highlightthe contribution that earth science makes to scientific understanding and stress itsimportance to teachers.

• Use “explanatory stories” to teach part of the science curriculum, when explanatoryEarth stories would form a natural part of the teaching.

• A system science approach would use the Earth system as the basis for the sciencecurriculum when the central role of Earth and environmental science would be clear.

• Strengthening environmental aspects of the curriculum would also emphasize therole of earth science.

• Changing the way in which the current NSC in England and Wales is compartmen-talized is likely to give earth and environmental science more prominence.

• Removal of the earth science component might please those who are unhappy aboutteaching it, but would leave a science curriculum with reduced breadth that wouldhave a number of repercussions, including not preparing pupils adequately for theenvironmental debates that are likely to take place in the future.

A strategy to address earth science teaching issues through professional development should

• take account of previous experience in providing professional development to scienceteachers.

• use a range of strategies in workshops that engage the interest and enthusiasm ofparticipants.


• be clearly relevant to the National Curriculum and normal teaching practices.• build background knowledge in various ways and illustrate appropriate teaching

strategies.• be based on teaching materials and strategies that are at appropriate levels for teachers

and pupils.• use teaching materials and apparatus that are readily available.• be aimed at building teacher competence and confidence.• be provided to whole departments in schools so that even “reluctant” teachers become

involved.• be given in sessions that are relatively short, are available at convenient times, and at

minimal cost to schools and teachers.

It would be preferable for such a strategy to be funded and supported by government.However, in the United Kingdom such support was not available from government but wasfound from an industrial source instead. This allowed the strategy to be implemented inpilot regions of England in the 1999/2000 academic year and it was well received. Thefunding has been continued and an expansion of the programme is planned.

Such a model could be applied to supporting earth science teaching in other countriesif funding can be made available. Strategies for different nations could be organized andsupported through the International Geoscience Education Organisation (IGEO).

The model could equally be applied to the supporting of National Curriculum content inother subject areas or to the implementation of new teaching strategies and subject areas innon-National Curriculum countries.

I am very grateful to David Thompson for his constructive criticism of early drafts of this paper.I thank the Science Education Lecturers in Bath, Manchester Metropolitan, Reading, and SwanseaUniversities and to all the Science Mentors in schools who arranged for questionnaires to be distributed,completed, collected, and returned. I am also grateful to the UK Offshore Operators Association whoprovided funding and support to set up a pilot professional development programme based on thesefindings.

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for scienceteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673–699.

Adamczyk, P., Binns, T., Brown, A., Cross, S., & Magson, Y. (1994). The geography–science inter-face: A focus for collaboration. Teaching Geography, 19, 11–14.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans.Washington: AAAS.

Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledgenecessary to improve self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 357–369.

Arthur, R. (1996). Lies, dam lies and books on geology. In D. A. V. Stow & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.),Geoscience education and training. In schools and universities, for industry and public awareness(pp. 289–291). Rotterdam: Balkema.

Association for Science Education (ASE). (1979). Alternatives for science education. Hatfield,England: ASE.

Association for Science Education (ASE). (1981). Education through science. Hatfield,England: ASE.

Association for Science Education (ASE). (1999). Science education for the year 2000 and beyond.Education in Science, 181. Hatfield, England: ASE.

662 KING

Barba, R., & Rubba, P. (1993). Expert and novice Earth and space science teachers’ declara-tive, procedural and structural knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 273–282.

Biamba, A., Katterns, R., & Kirkwood, V. (1993). Innovation in a science curriculum: A Sierra Leonecase study. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 213–219.

Black, P. (1995). 1987–1995: The struggle to formulate a National Curriculum for science in Englandand Wales. Studies in Science Education, 26, 159–188.

Brannlund, P. (1991). How the Earth works: A science teacher’s guide to essential earth science atkey stage 3. Leighton Buzzard, UK: Crucible Books.

Brannlund, P., & Rhodes, A. (1995). How the Earth works: A science teacher’s guide to essentialearth science at key stage 3. London: The Geological Society.

Clark, I. F. (Ed.). (1999). Abstract volume: 3rd International Conference on Geoscience Education.Canberra: Australian Geological Survey Organisation.

Council for Science and Technology (CST). (2000). Science teachers: A report on supporting anddeveloping the profession of science teaching in primary and secondary schools. London: HerMajesty’s Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office (DES). (1985). Science 5–16: A statement ofpolicy. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office (DES). (1987). National curriculum, scienceworking group—Interim report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office (DES). (1989). Science in the National Curricu-lum. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office (DES). (1991a). Science for ages 5 to 16 (1991).London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office (DES). (1991b). Science in the National Curricu-lum. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Department for Education/Welsh Office (DFE). (1995). Science in the National Curriculum. London:Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Dillon, J., Osborne, J., Fairbrother, R., & Kurina, L. (2000). A study into the professional views andneeds of science teachers in primary and secondary schools in England. London: King’s College.

Dudeney, A. W. L. (1980). Mineral process chemistry: A special study: MIMCU/Nuffield ChelseaTrust.

Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College.Earth Science Teachers’ Association (1990–1993). Science of the Earth 11–14. Sheffield: Geo Sup-

plies, Chapeltown.Earth Science Teachers’ Association (1995–1998). Investigating the science of the Earth. Sheffield:

Geo Supplies, Chapeltown.Fisher, J. A. (1992a). Geology: Earth science—or is it geography? School Science Review, 73,

141–145.Fisher, J. A. (1992b). National curriculum science—the earth science dimension. School Science

Review, 74, 129–134.Fisher, J. A. (1993). The empirical inductive tradition and some of its implications for earth science

teaching. Teaching earth sciences, 18, 12–15.Fisher, J. A. (1996). In-service education for science teachers: Helping science teachers to teach earth

science in UK schools. In D. A. V. Stow & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience education andtraining (pp. 353–365). Rotterdam: Balkema.

Fortner, R. W., & Mayer, V. J. (Eds.). (1998). Conference proceedings: Second International Confer-ence on geoscience education, Ohio State University.

Geddis, A. N. (1996). Science teaching and reflection: Incorporating new subject matter into teachers’classroom frames. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 493–504.

Hacker, R. G., & Rowe, M. J. (1997). The impact of a national curriculum development on teachingand learning behaviours. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 997–1004.

Hall, W. C., & Mowl, B. S. (1975). Schools council integrated science project publications. (Harlow:Longman).


Jenkins, E. W. (2000). The impact of the national curriculum on secondary school science teachingin England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 325–336.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, N. S. (1995). The development of a new science curriculum forsecondary school in Spain: Opportunities for change. International Journal of Science Education,17, 425–439.

Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1984). Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching. In D. Hopkis& M. Wideen (Eds.), Alternative perspectives on school improvement (pp. 77–87). Lewes, UK:Falmer Press.

Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Educational reform and subject knowledge. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 35, 249–263.

King, C. (1996). Developments in earth science education through the National Curriculum inEngland and Wales. In D. A. V. Stow & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience education and training(pp. 147–158). Rotterdam: Balkema.

King, C. (1998). The national curriculum earth science story in England and the challenge of educatingthe science teachers. Ense˜nanza de Ciencias de la Tierra, 6, 115–126.

King, C. (2000). The Earth’s mantle is solid: teachers’ misconceptions about the Earth and platetectonics. School Science Review, 82, 57–64.

King, C., Brooks, M., Gill, R., Rhodes, A., & Thompson, D. (1998). A comparison of GCSE doubleaward science syllabuses and examinations for their earth science content, accuracy and level ofdemand. London: The Geological Society.

King, C., Brooks, M., Gill, R., Rhodes, A., & Thompson, D. (1999). Earth science in GCSE sciencesyllabuses and examinations. School Science Review, 80, 87–93.

King, C., & Kennett, P. (1998). “Science of the Earth”—Past and present. Teaching earth sciences,23, 135–139.

Mayer, V. J., & Kumano, Y. (1999). The role of system science in future school science curricula.Studies in Science Education, 34, 71–91.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: KingsCollege, University of London.

Mottershead, D., & Hewitt, M. (1989). Geography and the science national curriculum. TeachingGeography, 14, 156–157.

National Curriculum Council (NCC). (1989). Science: Non-statutory guidance. York: NCC.National Curriculum Council (NCC). (1992). Starting out with the National Curriculum. York:

NCC.National Curriculum Council (NCC). (1993a). Teaching science at key stages 3 and 4. York: NCC.National Curriculum Council (NCC). (1993b). Earth science for secondary teachers: An INSET

handbook. York: NCC.National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington:

National Academy Press.Orion, N., King, C., Krockover, G. H., & Adams, P. E. (1999a). The development and status of earth

science education: A comparison of three case studies from Israel, England and Wales and theUnited States of America. Part I. Science Education International, 10(2), 13–23.

Orion, N., King, C., Krockover, G. H., & Adams, P. E. (1999b). The development and status of earthscience education: A comparison of three case studies from Israel, England and Wales and theUnited States of America. Part II. Science Education International, 10(3), 19–27.

Orion, N., & Thompson, D. (1996). Changes in perceptions and attitudes of preservice post-graduateschool science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 577–599.

Oversby, J. (1996). Knowledge of earth science and the potential for its development. School ScienceReview, 78, 91–97.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1998). Standards at key stage 3: Science. Suffolk:QCA Publications.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1999a). Geography: The National Curriculum forEngland. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1999b). Science: The National Curriculum forEngland. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

664 KING

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for Wales (ACCAC). (2000). Science in the National Cur-riculum for Wales. Cardiff: ACCAC.

Roberts, D. A. (1995). Junior High School science transformed: Analyzing a science curriculumpolicy change. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 249–265.

Royal Society. (1986). A proposal of reduced content for a coordinated science curriculum to age 16.London: Royal Society.

Russell, T., Qualter, A., & McGuigan, L. (1995). Reflections on the implementation of a nationalcurriculum science policy for the 5–14 age range: Findings and interpretations from a nationalevaluation study in England. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 481–492.

School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA). (1994). Report on the 1994 Key Stage 3 testsand tasks in science. London: SCAA Publications.

School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA). (1996). Standards at key stage 3: Science.London: SCAA Publications.

Takemura, S. (1999). A comparative study of scientific literacy. Hiroshima: Hiroshima University.Thompson, D. B. (1999a). The evolution and future of earth science education. Part 1: Lessons from

the past (1850–1987) and the present (1988–1997). Teaching Earth Sciences, 24, 124–136.Thompson, D. B. (1999b). The evolution and future of earth science education. Part 2: Guidelines for

the future of earth science education in the 21st century. Teaching Earth Sciences, 24, 155–167.Trend, R. (1995). Geography and science: Forging links at key stage 3. Sheffield: The Geographical

Association.Tuke, M. (1991). Earth science activities and demonstrations. London: John Murray.Whitehead, P. (1993). Coordinated science: Earth science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

the response of teachers to new subject areas in a national science curriculum: the case of the...

Documents