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

Prescription vs. Guidelines
A question we asked during our interviews was, "Did you read the introductory pages to the CSF?" For the majority of teachers, the answer to this question was that they had not.

I skimmed it, but didn't really read it... you don't have time; I had to see what to teach first...

This response was both typical and understandable. For many science teachers, the constant pressure of school and their ever-increasing workloads means that teachers need to find shortcuts in order to cope with the expectations and demands of their work. Therefore, although the introductory remarks to the CSF has important information describing the nature of the document as a framework, this information typically went unnoticed by those who obviously most needed to be informed about the structure and intent of the document.
As a result, it was a common perception amongst science teachers that the CSF was "a prescriptive curriculum rather than a curriculum framework". This distinction is important for as noted earlier, Victorian Science Teachers have had a long and proud tradition of school-based curriculum development and reform. They have worked hard to develop science curricula that are appropriate and responsive to the students in their schools and have produced some remarkable resources and units of work that are exemplars of this. STAV (Science Teachers' Association of Victoria) in particular has placed a great deal of time, effort and resources into such curriculum development (eg, Better Links by Grant, Johnson & Sanders, 1990). Therefore, the CSF was not viewed favourably by science teachers who were comfortable with this school-based curriculum development approach. They felt as though their professional autonomy and expertise was being undermined by a document which was not responsive to the needs of their students.
Obviously, then the issue was influential in shaping these science teachers' views of the CSF as they perceived the document to be telling them what to teach and how, rather than serving as a framework that might help to guide their own school-based decision-making processes in their particular curriculum writing activities.
This view is in stark contrast to science teachers who were involved in networks or clusters. These teachers felt as though they 'needed to read' the introductory notes in order to participate in their networks and clusters in an informed manner. One science coordinator noted:

Well I had to read it, I didn't really have time, but I had to... I then was less concerned about what I thought I had to do and in my school that has made a big difference to what I think we can do as a Faculty.

Therefore, there was a bi-modal response to the intent of the CSF. Again, in implementation of the CSF 2000 this issue was better recognised and introductory remarks (and in-service activities designed to introduce the materials) for this document helped science teachers to continue to pursue their teaching and learning in science in ways which they found appropriate to their particular school contexts.