Teachers, Curious Minds, and science education
Georgina Stewart and Cathy Buntting
http://dx.doi.org/10.18296/cm.0006
Abstract
The New Zealand Government’s National Science Challenges have recently generated renewed activity on how education, science and the public can better engage with each other, for the benefit of Aotearoa New Zealand society now and in the future. This work resulted in a key document: A Nation of Curious Minds—He Whenua Hihiri i te Mahara (Curious Minds). First, this article examines what Curious Minds means for science education and in particular for primary teachers, concluding that more thinking is required about the aims of classroom science learning programmes. The article takes up this challenge, drawing on scholarship by Jonathon Osborne to argue for a distinction between the knowledge required by a scientist as opposed to the knowledge a primary classroom teacher needs to teach science well. Osborne delineates the difference between the dominant model of “science as inquiry” and a new concept of primary science which he terms “science as a practice”. These distinctions provide a basis for clarifying the role of teachers in the context of likely outputs from Curious Minds.
Introduction
In the last decade or so, critical discourse analysis (CDA) has been found useful for studies of education policy documents (see, for example, Taylor, 2004). CDA examines the central arguments made in policy texts, augmented by attention to other textual features (structure, formatting, genre, authorship and so forth) relevant to the key policy messages and implications. Renowned CDA expert Norman Fairclough argues for the significant contribution CDA makes to critical policy studies, in a recent article featuring in the journal named for this emerging tradition: “critical policy studies” (Fairclough, 2013). The research reported in this article is based on CDA of four recent reports concerning science education policy in Aotearoa New Zealand, found in two key documents: Gluckman (2011) which bundles the first three reports listed below, and New Zealand Government (2014). The four reports are:
•Inspired by Science (Bull, Gilbert, Barwick, Hipkins, & Baker, 2010)
•Engaging Young New Zealanders with Science: Priorities for Action in School Science Education (Bay, Meylan, Leaman, Gibbs, & Beedle, 2011)
•Looking Ahead: Science Education for the Twenty-First Century: A Report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor (Gluckman, 2011) (Looking Ahead)
•A Nation of Curious Minds—He Whenua Hihiri i te Mahara: A National Strategic Plan for Science in Society (New Zealand Government, 2014) (Curious Minds).
The first part of the article introduces the context, implications, and some key messages of these policy documents, especially for primary classroom teachers, though cognisant of school science overall. In addition, some issues are considered in relation to how the development of Curious Minds has proceeded. The second half of the article turns to the work of Jonathon Osborne (2002, 2014) to re-think the nature of school science education, and suggests this is fundamental to ensure the success of the initiatives already underway to implement Curious Minds. The argument is that the actual problem with science education is that it has not yet evolved to reflect recent advances in understanding of the nature of science, students’ engagement and learning in science, and the multiple purposes for school science. What are the implications of this disconnect for primary classroom teachers?
Curious Minds: The background and some implications for teachers
The 2009 appointment of Sir Peter Gluckman as the inaugural Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor (PMCSA) heralded an increased government focus not only on science, but also on science education and science communication. Indeed, on the website of the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Gluckman identifies “the public understanding of, and engagement with, science, particularly with young people” as a key area of activity (www.pmcsa.org.nz/the-role-of-the-chief-scientific-advisor/). To this end, the report Looking Ahead: Science Education for the Twenty-First Century (Gluckman, 2011) focused on how to improve the outcomes of science education in Aotearoa New Zealand. It was informed by two previous reports commissioned by the PMCSA in preparing to advise the government about “the challenges and opportunities for enhancing science education for the benefit of the whole of New Zealand society and our national productivity” (Gluckman, 2011, p. v). The first report, Inspired by Science (Bull et al., 2010), was written by researchers from the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, and was followed by Engaging Young New Zealanders with Science: Priorities for Action in School Science Education (Bay et al., 2011), produced by a small team convened for the purpose. These two reports are annexed behind Gluckman’s own report, which opens the Looking Ahead document. Gluckman’s report concludes by calling for “innovative and more lateral thinking about science education” in order to “move from what is an adequate but promising situation to one that could be outstanding” (Gluckman, 2011, p. 8).
July 2014 saw the release of Curious Minds, jointly produced by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the Ministry of Education and the Office of the PMCSA. Although the reference group for Curious Minds included three of the key writers of the previous reports, including Gluckman himself, the plan makes no explicit reference to any of them. From the viewpoint of science education, then, to what extent did Curious Minds fulfil Gluckman’s prescription for “innovative and more lateral thinking about science education” (p. 8)? This question is relevant to the aim of considering the implications of Curious Minds for primary teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The Curious Minds report starts by outlining why science and technology matter so much to Aotearoa New Zealand society, stating that “better engagement” between science and society has been identified as central to the success of the entire plan for the future of national science (New Zealand Government, 2014, p. 6). The report scopes three “action areas” in broad terms for achieving this goal: enhancing the role of science education; public engaging with science and technology; and the science sector engaging with the public. The first area is most relevant to teachers, and is explained as focusing on:
quality teaching and learning, and providing additional opportunities to enhance competencies, confidence and dispositions that grow scientific knowledge, curiosity and creativity in students in partnership with schools/kura, families, whänau, iwi, and the business and science communities. (New Zealand Government, 2014, p. 23)
Since this key phrase describes how the work reported in Looking Ahead was taken forward, it can be evaluated against Gluckman’s prescription, quoted above, for “innovative and more lateral thinking about science education”. But the focus on “quality teaching and learning” is better described as “business-as-usual” for schools; and the rest of the phrase is prefaced by the intention to “provide additional opportunities for”, which sounds like more of something, rather than something new.
Specifically, Curious Minds lists four activities to enhance the role of science education.
1.Improve initial teacher education (ITE) by lifting the science and technology content.
2.Improve professional learning development (PLD) for teachers.
3.Build and maintain links between schools and science organisations, including developing a “participatory science platform” for science learning outside the classroom.
4.Review the positioning and content of digital technology in the school curriculum.
Item 4—digital technology—appears to focus primarily on the teaching of digital technologies within the school curriculum (www.curiousminds.nz/discover/article/6/4/review-of-digital-technologies). Item 1—which includes the participatory science platform—is central to the overall plan, but its development depends on close connections between science and public communities and as such is beyond the scope of the school sector on its own. The factors affecting the success of this initiative, as well as its long-term viability and sustainability, are no doubt key aspects that the Ministry of Education and the Minitry of Business, Innovation, and Employment will be investigating through the pilots—with reference, one hopes, to the broad literature base in this area.
The first activity, increasing the science content in ITE programmes, is noted as requiring a “longer term” approach (p. 35):
We will work with initial teacher education providers, qualification accreditation bodies and relevant professional bodies in considering the nature and scope of science and technology content in initial teacher education. This could form a component of under-graduate qualifications for early childhood and primary education, and would be targeted to lift the confidence of graduating teachers to teach science (teachers currently report limited confidence, particularly at years 7–8). (New Zealand Government, 2014, p. 24)
At least this “new” action acknowledges some of the challenges beginning teachers face in their daily work, but it reads as simply “more of the same”. The above description also sounds tentative (“considering … could form”), and the report suggests changes will be slow. This leaves the second activity in the above list—improving PLD—as being of most interest to schools and teachers.
The following extracts from the text of Curious Minds explain how this activity will work:
The Minister of Education has appointed an Advisory Group with representatives from across the education sector to provide advice on the design of future PLD across the compulsory schooling sector.
New actions
Science Skills in Education initiative
We will establish an initiative to support schools and teachers to build confidence and access resources to develop rich, contextualised science programmes that are exciting for students. It will include assisting teachers to continue their science education, focusing on skills that reflect science/pütaiao in the national curriculum, and expanding the availability of the Sir Paul Callaghan Science Academy initiative. This initiative focuses on professional learning and will explore links to the Teachers in Industry project as appropriate.
Teachers in Industry project
We will establish a project for teachers to connect schools with science-intensive businesses to enable teachers to spend a period of time in a business to bring business-relevant content into their science lesson plans.
Supporting actions
Provide teachers of science in years 1–10 with opportunities to work with research organisations to develop leadership skills and enhance the teaching of science within schools and communities.
Support the Science/Biotechnology Learning Hubs to provide a high-quality online repository of New Zealand science and resources to support science education for teachers, students and communities. (New Zealand Government, 2014, p. 25)
The “supporting actions” suggest some changes for initiatives already in place, including the Science Teaching Leadership Programme and the Science and Biotechnology Learning Hubs. The new offerings for teachers consist of the Science Skills in Education initiative and the Teachers in Industry project. Concerning the latter of these, the idea of teachers spending time in businesses to bring business content into their science lessons is a clear example of the neoliberal influence on education policy (Roberts & Peters, 2008; Thrupp & Irwin, 2010). The logic of this “project” fails when one considers that the aim of these activities is to help teachers teach science, not business. The prospects for science education are dim indeed if the difference between the two is lost—even if Curious Minds is premised on the economic relevance of science.
In contrast, the Science Skills in Education initiative has potential to develop in useful and innovative ways that are not totally predetermined, which is a strength because it allows more time for input and decision-making about processes and systems. But the Ministry of Education’s PLD Advisory Group is generic, not science-specific, which is likely to mean expertise in science education will be limited. The reach and effectiveness of the PLD remains to be seen—and it is difficult in these descriptions to perceive any really new, lateral thinking specifically about science education.
Back to the future, by a different path
If Curious Minds failed to deliver on the call for innovative and lateral thinking about science education (Gluckman, 2011, p. 8), then this thinking remains a worthy and important challenge, taken up in this section by examining the logic of the arguments, and assumptions that were not challenged, during the process that fed into the development of Curious Minds. This starts with Gluckman’s initial problem:
Anecdotally, many people consider that there are significant problems within our science education system. Yet when one discusses these matters, one gets rather vague and inconsistent descriptions of their perceived concerns. (Gluckman, 2011, p. 1)
The PMCSA found it noteworthy how “vague and inconsistent” the understandings were concerning the problem of science education. This observation evidences the need for conceptual work, not simply technical schemes for resourcing and provision of more PLD, such as those that dominate Curious Minds. Gluckman conceded that science education “is not in terrible shape” (Gluckman, 2011, p. 2), while still recognising serious difficulties with equity, and the key role of scientific literacy. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that Curious Minds fails to grasp the actual nature of the problem, namely, the conceptualisation of the task of science education. If so, then re-tracing the steps in the thinking that resulted in Curious Minds is worthwhile, starting with the first report Gluckman commissioned: Inspired by Science (Bull et al., 2010).
Inspired by science
The second section of Inspired by Science defines contemporary science education in relation to the two main ways of teaching science: “‘knowledge-centred’ teaching approaches, in which the primary focus is to replicate the structures of the discipline; and ‘learner-centred’ approaches, which are oriented around the learner’s needs”—and notes that “learner-centred approaches have predominated in primary classrooms, and knowledge-centred approaches have prevailed in secondary school classrooms” (Bull et al., 2010, p. 6). The report then notes that the “seamless” nature of NZC has resulted in an importing of the knowledge-centred approach into primary schools in the last decade or so, and takes further note that science is one curriculum area that has succumbed to the recent emphasis on literacy and numeracy in primary schools, with the implementation of the National Standards in Reading, Writing and Mathematics (Bull et al., 2010, p. 7; Education Review Office (ERO), 2012). As Gluckman noted, science has potential to provide rich learning contexts for reading, writing, and mathematics (Gluckman, 2011, p. 4), but the true value of this idea is obscured behind unchallenged assumptions about what “good” science teaching is like. The combination of these two problems, namely the importing of the disciplinary knowledge approach into primary schools, and the considerable pressure on teachers and schools to focus on literacy and numeracy, has led to a “low profile” for science in primary school classroom programmes (Bull et al., 2010, p. 7).
Inspired by Science is a succinct, erudite precis of the national science education problem. The report’s recommendations are presented in the form of a “possible scenario” whose main feature is its division of science education into three key stages, each with different characteristics: primary Years 1–6; middle Years 7–10; and senior secondary Years 11–13 (pp. 35–36). Yet no trace of this work remains in Curious Minds. The other main recommendation of Inspired by Science was “to convene a forum of scientists, educationalists and policy makers to debate the future of science education” (Bull et al., 2010, p. 37). This advice was followed insofar as the PMCSA “chaired an extensive consultation” (Gluckman, 2011, p. 2) before convening “a small expert group to produce a second paper making recommendations and suggestions for enhancement of science education” (Gluckman, 2011, p. v) which resulted in Engaging Young New Zealanders with Science: Priorities for Action in School Science Education (Bay et al., 2011).
The last section of Inspired by Science starts as follows:
Considering the options
Changes in society, schooling and science itself, coupled with a lack of clarity of the purpose of science education, have produced school science programmes that are not optimally meeting the needs of any of our students—neither high achievers headed for science related careers nor the majority who need science for citizenship. Solving this problem requires a long term strategy that takes into account purposes, pedagogies, assessment practices, teacher beliefs and values, resources and the wider community. (Bull et al., 2010, p. 35)
This quote captures something of both the best of Inspired by Science, and its least successful aspects. On the one hand, the report achieved an elegant synopsis of a complex range of educational issues and research literatures. On the other hand, it failed in its presentation to optimise the impact of its findings. The absence of an Executive Summary meant key points were buried in the body of the 41-page report. Moreover, the conclusion, under the somewhat ambiguous heading shown above, is admirably non-dogmatic, to the extent that it seems to have been completely overlooked in subsequent developments.
Looking ahead—but with blind spots
A few lacunae can be identified in Looking Ahead: points where lack of clear advice possibly shows through. For example, misconceptions of the problem of primary school science are shown in the following statement, which is both factually and ethically unsound:
Most primary school children are enthralled by the world around them. They have a spirit of enquiry and an enthusiasm for life that needs to be encouraged in every way. But most primary school teachers come from a background in the humanities and are ill-prepared for the increasingly complex questions about science that primary school children might throw at them. (Gluckman, 2011, p. 4, emphasis added)
First the factual inaccuracies: the italicised phrase is incorrect since today’s initial teacher education for primary school teaching comprises a BEd teaching degree, which makes their “background” the social sciences, not the humanities. One might raise a further objection to the very idea of primary school teachers “coming from a [disciplinary] background”, since this phrase betrays a lack of understanding of the nature and history of the primary profession (understandable on the part of Sir Peter himself, but inadequate in the report, given its importance). The above remark also suggests that to teach science well, primary teachers need tertiary qualifications in science. This arguable assumption, discussed further below, is linked in the above quote to the truism that primary teachers are likely to have children asking complex questions about science. But this observation implies that primary teachers must be disciplinary experts in all subjects—a notion of pedagogy that is no longer supported in the profession. The failure to distinguish between primary and secondary science education leaves Looking Ahead and Curious Minds more vulnerable to such lapses.
Furthermore, the above statement is ethically unsound insofar as it leaves primary teachers to bear the brunt of the blame for the acknowledged problem with science education, which is neither fair nor useful, and betrays the deficit positioning of primary teachers that underpins this report and its proposals. It is noticeable that the expertise for plans to improve science education, according to Curious Minds, will come mainly from the science, business, media, and technology sectors, rather than from teachers and educators themselves. But if Curious Minds amounts to doing more of the same, where is the guarantee that the new “platforms” and “partnerships” will address the educational needs and issues—and that they will not further exacerbate inequities and the current gaps between deciles and ethnicities that Gluckman (2011) identified as concerning? Will classrooms use the internet to become “flies on the wall” of the scientist’s laboratory? What will the purpose of this be? Who will benefit? Or will scientists be expected to regularly interrupt their schedule to deliver engaging but didactic accounts of their work to children? What if the difficulties primary teachers experience in teaching science actually result from factors other than their own lack of disciplinary science knowledge? It’s not that knowledge is not important—but more discussion is needed about the types of knowledge that are needed, and how best to support teachers to develop these knowledges. Furthermore, the assumption that increased science knowledge leads to increased confidence and competence in teaching science needs reconsidering.
Another lapse in Looking Ahead is found in the conclusion to the section on primary school science:
In summary, with regard to primary schools I believe there should be an attempt to improve the confidence of all teachers within primary schools to assist in science and that all primary schools should be encouraged to develop a science champion. (Gluckman, 2011, p. 5, emphasis added)
This remark again disempowers primary school classroom teachers, reducing their role from boss of their own classroom to “assisting”; while the second proposal, for science specialist coordinators (aka champions) in every primary school, runs the risk of encouraging other teachers to leave science to the “champion”. This is an uninspiring message and conveys pessimism about the ability of all primary school teachers to actually support children’s curiosity and develop their scientific wonderings. It is not that specialist coordinators are not needed, but the positioning of such roles needs to be more clearly thought through and articulated.
A final weakness found in Looking Ahead concerns the four large aims or purposes of science education, which were delineated in Inspired by Science as: pre-professional training; utilitarian; democratic/citizenship; and cultural/intellectual. These four aims were acknowledged in Looking Ahead, but then distorted, with the three latter aims largely collapsing into “life skills” (Gluckman, 2011, p. 5). In this move, the rich and complex role of learning science in developing the intellect and firing the imagination, as well as the critical links between science, literacy, and democracy, are easily forgotten. The following section reconsiders these overall aims and purposes of science education, and how they can be included alongside the plans signalled in Curious Minds, in pedagogical terms that restore the primary classroom teacher to the role of expert facilitator of children’s learning.
A new paradigm for science education
There is a dominant view in Aotearoa New Zealand that good science teaching consists of “practical work”, also called “investigations” or “experiments”. This paradigmatic view is based on the idea that science education should give students the opportunity to “do science”—an idea held unthinkingly by most science teachers, teacher educators, and science education policy-makers, since it has dominated practice in science classrooms for over a generation and permeates the ways The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) (NZC) is interpreted and implemented. Its influence is also clear in Curious Minds. If one believes that children in classrooms must “do science” then it makes sense that scientists have to “show them how”. But using the research literature, in particular the work of Jonathon Osborne, this section digs more deeply into the detailed meanings of “practical work”, “doing science”, and “teaching science as inquiry” to reveal the need to look beyond this model of school science teaching.
Practical work is popular with students of all ages, particularly as an alternative to copying off the board, which some secondary students report as their staple science diet (McKinley, Stewart, & Richards, 2004) and foundational in secondary science teaching, which takes place in the “specialised location” of the school laboratory (Osborne, 2002, p. 204). This idea also affects primary school classrooms, which are the main concern of this article, because the “image” of practical work or “science as doing” is the picture or paradigm of science education held by most primary classroom teachers, often dating from their own remembered experiences of school science. The image of science as “action, an individual engaged in manipulating the material world, exploring and exposing its inner secrets, but not one of discourse, i.e. reading, writing and communicating science” (Osborne, 2002, pp. 203–204) perpetuates itself and spreads through primary science—and society—via school communities and the teaching fraternity. This classic trope or image of science is part of what is called “school science” (Aikenhead, 2000; Duschl, 1990): a straw-man, distorted version of science, which aligns with the acknowledged tendency for philosophy of science to overbalance towards empiricism, and the lay concept of science as nature study (Chalmers, 1999).
This image of science teaching as only “doing science” is described by Osborne (2002) as resting on “self-sustaining delusions” and “tacit myths that are uncritically accepted by the practitioner community as they appear, at least superficially, to carry a self-evident logic” (p. 204). Osborne’s advice is valuable since he is a global leader in science education research, whose extensive repertoire of peer-reviewed publications on many aspects of science teaching and learning was referenced at various points by Inspired by Science.
The limitations of the “science as inquiry” approach
Osborne (2002) refutes the dominant myth of science teaching as “doing science”, saying,
such a belief ignores the self-evident fact that, whereas the scientist’s laboratory does support genuine open-ended empirical enquiry, the laboratory of the science teacher, in contrast, supports, first and foremost, a pedagogical function (p. 204).
Osborne (2002) synopsises the major findings of a substantial literature on the role of the laboratory in school science. Apart from student enjoyment, autonomy and the development of laboratory skills, practical work provides “essential sensori-motor experiences for forming the constructs and referents” of science (p. 205). But asking what happens when experiments “fail” in the school laboratory highlights “the extent to which teachers will ‘rig’ or ‘conjure’ the material world to behave in the manner they describe” (ibid.). The primary role of lab work, Osborne concludes, is rhetorical, in which “the materials and equipment are critical adjuncts to the science teachers’ [sic] basic task of persuading his or her pupils of the validity of the scientific world view” (p. 204). Reference to the science lab as “props” is clear: “the function of the laboratory is to provide a theatre in which the scientific world view can be enacted” (p. 205).
While acknowledging “good educational and epistemological reasons” for practical work in school science, Osborne (2002) argues that “science is much more than empirical work in the laboratory” (p. 205), pointing to recent shifts in the understanding of science away from the empiricist view, which mean that “it is not possible to base claims for truth on observation alone” (p. 206):
Rather, claims are seen to be grounded through the process of argument ... Such a process requires scientists to engage in both reading the work of others and writing to communicate their own findings. In short, to engage in the discourse of the scientific community. Thus, science is a complex interplay of phenomena, data, theories, beliefs, values, motivation and social context both constituted by, and reflected in, its discourse (p. 206).
The implications of the recent revolution in the philosophy of science, inaugurated most famously by the work of Kuhn (1962), for the dominant science education model of “doing science” led Osborne (2002) to focus more closely on how language is used in science, not only to communicate, but also to advance knowledge through reasoning and argument. Moreover, Osborne argued there is a serious disjunction between the way language is used in science, compared with the “common conception” of the role of language in science education. Most teachers unconsciously hold “a correspondence theory of language often coupled with a naïve realism”, a combination that leads to the view that “the quality of explanation is a crucial determinant to developing students’ understanding. Teachers speak of the failure to “get it across” or ideas “going down well’” (p. 208). This misguided focus on “quality explanations” understandably cripples teacher confidence, since it overlooks the “complexity” that makes explaining science “so problematical” (p. 209).
Osborne’s (2002) paper reflected an international shift in focus from “doing science” to “science literacy” as guiding the underlying aims of teaching and learning in science. However, differing views of the nature of science literacy and scientific literacy exist, and “doing science” remains the dominating discourse in the practice of science education. Twelve years later, after the work that informs Curious Minds had already been completed, Osborne (2014) released a new paper, to which discussion now turns.
Science as a practice: A new paradigm for science education
Osborne’s (2014) analysis reflects on “the shift from teaching science as inquiry to teaching science as a practice” (p. 177) posited in the United States’ “Next Generation Science Standards” (Achieve, 2012). This shift, he argues, is a considerable improvement for science education that advances the profession by providing a clear framework by which to “enable better communication of meaning amongst professional science educators. This will, in turn, enable practice in the classroom to improve” (p. 177). Such a change in paradigm clearly qualifies as the “innovative thinking” the PMCSA thought was needed for a step-change to lift the performance of science education in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is also reflected in the Ministry of Education’s 2014 release of “science capabilities’—capabilities that “could contribute to a functional knowledge of science” (www.scienceonline.tki.org.nz/Introducing-five-science-capabilities) but that are not specifically included in Curious Minds.
The “science as a practice” model of science is, according to Osborne (2014), informed by recent studies, both philosophical and psychological, of how science and scientists work, and builds on 50 years of research into the nature of science since the “turning point” represented by Kuhn (Osborne, 2014, p. 178). The model of science as a practice includes investigations as one of eight key scientific practices.
Scientific practices:
1.Asking questions and defining problems
2.Developing and using models
3.Planning and carrying out investigations
4.Analyzing and interpreting data
5.Using mathematical and computational thinking
6.Constructing explanations and designing solutions
7.Engaging in argument from evidence
8.Obtaining, evaluating and communicating information (Osborne, 2014, p. 179).
Without the other components of scientific practice (seven, in the above list), Osborne warns that “many students adopt a naive realist interpretation of scientific theories, seeing them as emerging from data” and that “many students fail to see ... that science is fundamentally about ideas not experimentation” (p. 182, emphasis in the original). Emphasising the importance of developing a “reserved professional language” (p. 179) that clarifies the goals of learning science, Osborne argues that:
the primary purpose of engaging in [science] practice is to develop students [sic] knowledge and understanding required by that practice, how that practice contributes to how we know what we know, and how that practice helps to build reliable knowledge (p. 189).
Turning to the implications of the new model (teaching science as a practice) for teacher educators, Osborne delineates the features of the disciplinary knowledge of science education under three headings: procedural knowledge (how scientists produce data that can be trusted); epistemic knowledge (i.e. knowledge of the specific features of science and their role in contributing to how we know what we know, captured in the NZC as the overarching Nature of Science strand within the science learning area); and pedagogical content knowledge. Describing what a student teacher should know after a year-long course in science education, according to this new paradigm, Osborne (2014) writes:
We would expect them to be able to identify some or all of the affordances that any task might offer to engage in one or more of these [8 scientific] practices. We would also expect them to be able to point to what are the generic features of the discipline that the task and its associated practices exemplify, and some of the specific elements of content, procedural and epistemic knowledge that might be the learning outcomes of such a task. Students should also be able to identify the cognitive challenges of such task and have some sense of the common difficulties that students demonstrate. They should also be able to suggest ways in which student knowledge and understanding could be diagnosed (pp. 192–193).
These elements of knowledge are required of the classroom teacher, not any outside expert. Importantly, they highlight that primary teachers need a disciplinary background in science education, which is rather different from a disciplinary background in science. This realization serves to re-orient thinking about the plans in Curious Minds. While the relationships and partnerships with science research teams might offer rich opportunities for bringing science talk into the classroom, they cannot on their own take the place of the teacher in the core business of facilitating students’ science learning.
Conclusion
Curious Minds purports to set a direction for national public engagment in science, including national science teaching, until 2024 (MBIE, 2014, p. 35), but fails to make sufficient distinction between the massively different conditions of teaching and learning science in primary classrooms as compared with secondary classrooms. In addition, teaching science through inquiry is the result of a category error because it conflates the aims and methods of doing science with the aims (and therefore methods) of learning science. Teaching science needs to draw on our knowledge of how humans learn and a deep understanding of the nature of the discipline, including the centrality of critique (Osborne, 2014). It is currently difficult to imagine how the proposals in Curious Minds will meet Gluckman’s (2011) call for innovation and lateral thinking about science education—or indeed how they will foster students’ long-term curiosity and innovation that is the underlying premise of the plan.
Without understanding the arguments made in Inspired by Science about the goals of science education, and Osborne’s (2014) unpacking of the nuanced differences between teaching “science as inquiry” and “science as a practice”, there is great jeopardy if Curious Minds proceeds headlong down the signposted routes to implementation. On the other hand, if this disjunction in purpose is recognised soon, there is time to adjust the focus of the “platforms” and “partnerships” to become opportunities for teaching and learning of science as a practice, including the deeply embedded mathematical and literacy components. With or without implementation of the specific actions signalled in Curious Minds, the need remains for teachers to develop their disciplinary knowledge in science education, rather than in science, as the old paradigm suggests. The large aims of science and society, articulated in the National Science Challenges, depend on getting this right.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Ally Bull, Rose Hipkins, Jacquie Bay, and the other members of the Science Special Interest Group (SIG) of NZARE (New Zealand Association of Research in Education) for collegiality and discussions that led to this article, based on shared commitment to learners of science in Aotearoa New Zealand.
References
Achieve. (2012). Next generation science standards [Website]. Retrieved from www.nextgenerationscience.org.
Aikenhead, G. (2000). Renegotiating the culture of school science. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education—the contribution of research (pp. 245–264). Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Bay, J., Meylan, R., Leaman, J., Gibbs, S., & Beedle, A. (2011). Engaging young New Zealanders with science: priorities for action in school science education. Auckland: Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisory Committee. Retrieved from www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Looking-ahead-Science-education-for-the-twenty-first-century.pdf.
Bull, A., Gilbert, J., Barwick, H., Hipkins, R., & Baker, R. (2010). Inspired by science. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). St Lucia, QLD: University of Queensland Press.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring school science: The importance of theories and their development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Education Review Office (ERO). (2012). Science in the New Zealand curriculum: Years 5–8. Retrieved from www.ero.govt.nz/National-Reports/Science-in-The-New-Zealand-Curriculum-Years-5-to-8-May-2012
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7(2), 177–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239
Gluckman, P. (2011). Looking ahead: Science education for the twenty-first century. A report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Auckland: Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee. Retrieved from http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Looking-ahead-Science-education-for-the-twenty-first-century.pdf.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McKinley, E., Stewart, G., & Richards, P. (2004). Mäori students in science and mathematics: Junior programmes in secondary schools. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 9–13.
New Zealand Government. (2014). A nation of curious minds—He whenua hihiri i te mahara: a national strategic plan for science in society. Retrieved from www.msi.govt.nz/assets/MSI/Update-me/Science-in-society-project/science-in-society-plan.pdf
Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147559
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Roberts, P., & Peters, M. (2008). Neoliberalism, higher education and research. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in “new times”: Using critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268093042000227483
Thrupp, M., & Irwin, R. (Eds.). (2010). Another decade of New Zealand education policy: Where to now? Hamilton: WMIER, Faculty of Education, The University of Waikato.
The authors
Georgina Stewart (ko Whakarärä te maunga, ko Matauri te moana, ko Ngäti Kura te hapü, ko Ngäpuhi-nui-tonu te iwi) is a senior lecturer in Te Puna Wänanga (School of Mäori Studies) in the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, based at the Tai Tokerau Campus in Whangarei. Previously she taught science, mathematics and te reo Mäori in Mäori-medium and English-medium schools in Auckland and Whangarei, then researched the Mäori science curriculum for her Doctorate of Education (EdD) from the University of Waikato. The thesis formed the basis of her 2010 book by Sense Publishers, titled Good Science? The Growing Gap between Power and Education.
Email: g.stewart@auckland.ac.nz
Cathy Buntting is a senior research fellow at the University of Waikato with an MSc in biochemistry and PhD in science education. Her research interests are in science and technology education, including students’ development of ethics and futures thinking skills in the context of these curriculum areas. Recent book projects include two co-edited volumes: The Future of Science Education: What’s in it for Students? and The Future of Technology Education, both published by Springer. Cathy is also involved in the development of the New Zealand Science and Biotechnology Learning Hubs.
Email: buntting@waikato.ac.nz