Curriculum change in science teaching: the need to listen to teachers

Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 2, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun., 2001)
Amanda Berry and John Loughran
Curriculum change in science teaching: the need to listen to teachers

Previous Contents Next

Progression
Throughout our interviews there were particular transition points within the CSF which became noticeable issues of concern for science teachers. Two points in particular were associated with the move from Primary to High school (Year 6 - Year 7 transition) and the issues associated with Mixed Vertical Grouping (MVG).
In both instances, it was apparent that teachers had recognised an important issue concerning the organisation of the CSF in terms of Levels.

We might be able to teach in front of a Level [extend students] but it is very hard to think about going back a Level - or two!

Science teachers in Year 7 often noted how their students were reportedly at the correct CSF Level (4) for entry into High school. However, these teachers were confident that the level of achievement was not universally commensurate with the intention of the learning outcomes at that Level. Therefore, these teachers found themselves facing a dilemma. In teaching their students, they began to question the meaning of attainment at a particular level and in science where it is common for teachers to consider learning in terms of building on particular concepts. This became an issue of concern.
This dilemma was exacerbated in schools that were organised according to Mixed Vertical Groupings. Because of the range of skills, attitudes and learning abilities represented, teachers found it very difficult to know which Level to 'teach to' in order to best address the learning needs of their students. Further, if teachers choose to teach using multiple Levels in Mixed Vertical Groups they face an additional problem in that the content areas are very different between different levels of the same strand.
Although it is well recognised that any group of students is inevitably heterogeneous (hence the development of the term mixed ability) the notion of Levels as being relatively fixed measures of Learning Outcomes corresponding to particular Year Levels causes some concern for Science Teachers.
Again, for curriculum writers, issues related to students' ability levels need to be carefully considered as classroom teachers inevitably struggle to meet policy guidelines about progress when it is incongruent with the reality of classroom practice. Perhaps in this instance, the political differences between Federal and State Education Department's unreasonably overshadowed the reality of what learning outcomes really mean. The National Curriculum Standards from which the CSF was initially drawn, recognised the inherent difficulties of 'controlling' the rate (and reality) of learning, but this was 'overlooked' in the transformation to the CSF due to the State Department's hopes to measure students' ability levels and to use this measure for other purposes (for example, school funding, teacher accountability).
In fact, in many ways, the events in the United Kingdom in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Turner and Bash, 1999) whereby the introduction of the National Curriculum and the ensuing implications associated with assessment, school funding, and the development of 'League Tables' (Head, Maguire and Dillon, 1997) certainly loomed large in the minds of many Victorian teachers. Implementation of the CSF created a sense of uncertainty about other changes that might be introduced as a result of the extra 'possibilities' that might emerge - standardized testing at two stages in primary schooling was one immediate outcome.