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

Learning Outcomes
Following on from the issue above, an important feature of the CSF, which was new to many science teachers, was the introduction of the language of Learning Outcomes. In many ways the application of Learning Outcomes was perceived as a return to 'Behavioural Objectives' and therefore created confusion for teachers as they did not necessarily believe that just because they had 'taught' a topic that students would have 'learnt' that which was intended. The previous Science Frameworks Document (1987) had highlighted for science teachers much of the research knowledge associated with Children's Science (Osborne and Freyberg 1985; Gunstone, 1990) and alternative conceptions (Driver, 1983; Driver, et al., 1985). Therefore, the approach to Learning Outcomes seemed almost paradoxical. Further, throughout our interviews we continually asked the question, "Could you give an example of how you teach for a particular Learning Outcome?" and this question was rarely answered in a confident manner.
One effect of teachers' lack of confidence in teaching using a Learning Outcomes approach was the more widespread use of textbooks in science classes (a major shift for teachers accustomed to developing their own curriculum). Textbooks that purport to cover the relevant content areas and Learning Outcomes of the CSF came to be more relied upon by teachers to ensure that the demands of the CSF could be met.
An ongoing dilemma for CSF 2000 has been to find ways to illustrate particular approaches to teaching towards a Learning Outcome(s) so that exemplars of such practice might be recognised and highlighted for other science teachers. Clearly, in describing and articulating such practices the nature of Learning Outcomes would become clearer and more useful to science teachers and would also be most helpful in addressing the dilemma noted in the previous section (Progression). It does, however, cause one to wonder how such a fundamental issue could be overlooked in developing curriculum documents that challenged existing approaches to practise in such a confronting manner.