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

Interpreting the Science CSF
For Science teachers to interpret the CSF they were confronted with the (not unexpected) changes in language that often accompany such documents. For example, the traditional categories of, for example, Biology, Chemistry, Physics were re-assigned so that the new names became - Life and Living (Biology), Natural and Processed Materials (Chemistry), the Physical World (Physics) and Earth and Beyond (Earth sciences and Astronomy), each of these categories were described as Strands and the units within these strands were (not surprisingly) sub-strands.
Accompanying these 'name changes' was also a new way of conceptualising both the curriculum and student learning. First there was a curriculum prescription (what would be taught) and secondly the notion of Learning Outcomes was introduced. In terms of the previous two decades of school-based curriculum development, the idea of prescribing what would be taught at each year level caused much consternation for science teachers. For science teachers, this was the first step towards a bureaucratized approach to school curriculum such that the science departments within schools were no longer 'free' to determine what they considered was appropriate for their students as a result of their intimate knowledge of the school's context, rather, the curriculum would (appear to) be prescribed and the teachers would then simply teach it. This was a problem in itself, but the next most daunting task to face science teachers was the approach to Learning Outcomes; predetermined measures of learning, something very new and different for science teachers accustomed to planning their own school based curriculum (including teaching and assessment approaches). Learning Outcomes were based on the notion that it was possible (and similarly appropriate) to prescribe the learning that would occur and therefore to be able to measure the success of this learning against the prescribed outcomes - in some ways this could be viewed as a modern day behavioural objectives approach to learning and assessment.
Perhaps one useful way of exploring this issue is through an example. Consider the following taken from the Science Strand Earth and Beyond, sub-strand Our place in Space.

Earth and Beyond
Level 3 (end of Year 4: 10 & 11 year old students)
Curriculum focus: At this level, students link more abstract ideas such as the relationship between weather and the environment, including erosion and weathering. They relate seasons and length of daylight to the relative tilt of the Earth's axis.
Manipulative and recording skills become more developed. Students make observations using clocks and estimate the time of year from weather clues. They make measurements and use simple graphs and tables to record results from which they can extract specific information. Students express their ideas with growing confidence.
Suitable topics include floods, a burst water main, daylight saving, and seasons.
Learning Outcomes: At the completion of level 3, a student will be able to:
Discuss events caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis, including seasons and the length of daylight.
This will be evident when, for example, the student:

collects and discusses data on the length of daylight each day over an extended period and displays findings in a suitable chart

uses a globe of the world and a torch to model and compare the intensity of the Sun's energy striking various parts of the Earth's surface throughout the year and relates this to seasons

measures and compares the length and position of the shadow of a flagpole or other tall structure at different times during the year. (CSF, p.34)

This curriculum outline then begs the question, "What does this mean for a science teacher attempting to teach at this level according to the CSF?" It seems reasonable to assert that the Learning Outcome (discuss the events caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis, including seasons and the length of daylight) would be difficult to measure through the evidence (data collection of length of daylight, use of globe and torch model, shadow of a flagpole) because of the difference in the degree of difficulty of the concepts at this level. For example, the tilt of the Earth's axis and its influence on the seasons requires a substantial understanding of latitudes, seasonality, and the influence of weather, to say nothing of the understanding of geometry. Therefore, what does the science teacher really do? Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to teach for the answers as prescribed by the evidence that (it seems reasonable to suggest from the phrasing of the dot points above) should be apparent. If so, is the teaching of this science sub-strand genuinely exploring the phenomena under consideration or is it more so prescribing only what the curriculum providers consider appropriate? For Science teachers accustomed to school-based curriculum development and assessment, this creates a major quandary.
Expanding on this approach to Learning Outcomes, consider the same sub-strand at Level 5 (end of Year 8, 13 and 14 year old students).

Our Place in Space
Level 5 (end of Year 8: 13 & 14 year old students)
Learning Outcomes: At the completion of level 5, a student will be able to:
Discuss events caused by the relative movements of the Sun, Moon and Earth.
This will be evident when, for example, the student:

relates information such as tide charts to the lunar cycle

models lunar and solar eclipses

records phases of the Moon regularly and explains changes in phase

suggests how to position and design a house to take advantage of passive solar heating. (CSF, p. 48)

In a similar manner to the previous example, this extract then begs the question, "How does a science teacher interpret these learning outcomes (particularly in relation to those at Level 3)?" Again, it would seem reasonable to assert that the ability to record and explain changes in phases of the moon would not create as great a conceptual difficulty for students at the end of Year 8 as attempting to describe the impact of a change in the tilt of the Earth's axis on seasons for students at the end of Year 4. In fact, it could well be argued that the Level 3 outcome could be regarded as Level 5 difficulty and the Level 5 outcomes more simply as a Level 3.