The new national science curriculum up to Year 10 has
been released for consultation.
It divides teaching
into two ‘strands’: Physical Science, which focuses on
matter, energy, Earth & space; and Biological Science,
which looks at topics like organisms, genetics, and
ecosystems. The content also highlights prominent scientists
in these areas.
The science curriculum rewrite has
been long awaited after being put
on hold at the 2023 election and paused again in 2024.
This draft is open for six months’ consultation, and is
due to be introduced
to schools in 2027.
The SMC asked experts to
comment.
Dr Carrie Swanson, Senior Lecturer in
Teacher Education, AUT, comments:
“The whakataukī
Mā te whakaaro nui e hanga te whare; mā te mātauranga
e whakaū underscores the new science curriculum’s
focus on explicit knowledge and the preparation of students
for future study and science-based careers, but the broader
2007 curriculum’s goal of developing informed, responsible
citizens is less visible. The curriculum has narrowed from
five strands to two — physical and biological sciences
emphasising prescribed tasks over societal
engagement.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“The purpose statement acknowledges the
value of incorporating Te ao Māori perspectives to enrich
scientific learning, which can be seen in the inclusion of
Matariki, kaitiakitanga, ngā tohu, Māori musical
instruments (pūtātara, kōauau), and species names in te
reo. A stronger emphasis on New Zealand, Māori and Pacific
scientists might encourage students to ‘see themselves’
in science and possibly as ‘scientists’.
“The
curriculum is highly prescriptive, detailing specific
knowledge, practices, and materials for each level, which
supports teachers but may limit opportunities for
student-driven exploration. There is inconsistency in the
number of sub-strands across year levels, such as seven at
Year 4 and only four at Year 6. This variability requires
careful planning, especially for teachers with multi-year
classes.
“Many concepts are only explicitly visited
once, e.g., life cycles in Year 3, Matariki in Year 4,
friction in Year 7. Some concepts are introduced at
different year levels than currently, e.g., cells, cellular
respiration and photosynthesis in Year 7 and genetics in
Year 8 (currently introduced in Year 9), which will require
teacher upskilling. Notably, climate change is addressed
only in Year 10, and human impact is covered in Year 7 and
Year 10, which is concerning given the urgency of climate
action, and the deletion of Education for Sustainability as
a senior school subject.
“Support for teachers,
particularly with science boxes, is signalled but there is
little clarity on how teachers will be effectively upskilled
in both content and pedagogical knowledge. Past resources,
such as the Connected series, school journals and
Science Learning Hub Pokapū Akoranga Pūtaiao, should be
leveraged.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No
conflicts of interest. I provided feedback on the 2023 first
draft science curriculum but have not been on any of the
curriculum design groups. I work in primary science
education in Initial Teacher Education, co-chair the NZARE
Science Special Interest group, which has no influence on
the curriculum design, and am part of an Australasian group
looking into STEM/science
policy.”
Science education researchers
Prof. Georgina Tuari Stewart (Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu, Pare
Hauraki), AUT, and Associate Prof. Sally
Birdsall, University of Auckland,
comment:
“One big change is that ‘nature
of science’ has been completely dropped, whereas it was an
‘overarching strand’ in the previous version. But the
nature of science was never taught well, given how complex
it is, so deleting it is no great loss and enables a clearer
curriculum, rich in scientific knowledge. However, losing
the nature of science will cause consternation for some in
the science education community.
“The new Science
curriculum is clear and simple, with content presented in
two strands, Physical Science and Biological Science, across
four phases covering Year 0 – 10. This replaces the
current version with five strands and five levels. Each
strand is split into elements e.g. matter, earth and space,
body systems, ecosystems.
“It gets more directly to
what teachers want to know, namely the teaching and learning
content, while still retaining touches like an opening
whakataukī (proverb) that mark it out as a uniquely New
Zealand curriculum. Each phase section starts with a brief
list of typical equipment and materials required: another
way this new curriculum seems closer to the needs of
teachers. All content is presented in two main sections,
Knowledge and Practices, reflecting and guiding how teachers
think about planning and teaching Science in the
classroom.
“The detail in each section is familiar
and tangible, e.g. in Year 4 Materials:
- Matter
exists in different states — solid, liquid, and
gas. - At sea level, freshwater boils at 100°C and
freezes at 0°C.
“It’s pleasing to see some
inclusion of local and Māori knowledge, e.g. in Year 4
Earth and Space:
- The visibility of Matariki in
the morning sky is used as an indicator of seasonal change
for many iwi.
“References to scientists,
including some New Zealand and Māori names, are included in
relevant sections.”
No conflicts of
interest.
Professor Stuart McNaughton, Professor
in Curriculum and Pedagogy at the University of Auckland,
comments:
“The focus on science knowledge and
practices developing together from Y1 is appropriate from
the viewpoint of development and educational sciences. It is
also appropriate to have greater clarity and detail over the
areas that can be covered at each Year level, although there
are issues to do with the limited presence of Mātauranga
Māori and a focus on how knowledge and practices relate to
local contexts.
“Additional weaknesses or omissions
relate to the content.
“One is the relative absence
of Interdisciplinarity, reference to which appears only at
Y9 and 10. This is too late to establish the knowledge,
understandings and skills for solving complex open problems,
such as climate change mitigation. Knowledge that humans can
impact the environment appears earlier, but this raises an
additional issue. High levels of knowledge of climate change
without local action can be problematic, being related to
increased student pessimism. But that pessimism is reduced
with greater local collaborative environmental action in
schools. The lack of interdisciplinarity reflects the
statement in the overall curriculum of approximate time
allocation for teaching science (2 hours per week at Y0-8)
compared with the other learning areas such as English and
Maths (15 hours). This reinforces a view of these areas as
discrete. Yet in addition to interdisciplinarity, literacy
which contributes to science knowledge is essential from Y0.
An example is the reference to the role of vocabulary which
appears in Y2, but is limited to the ‘language of cause
and effect’. The technical and conceptual knowledge needed
from Y0 is dependent on literacy and especially effective
vocabulary teaching taught in the context of science (but
also should be being taught through science based early
readers).
“The second omission is the surprising
absence of any focus on developing critical thinking in
science. There is no reference to practices of being
critical at any year level in any of the science areas. The
lack of criticality appears general in that ‘critical
thinking’ is referenced only once in the overall
curriculum statement, as a ‘capability’ providing a
‘strong foundation’, subsumed under the heading of
‘problem solving’. Again, this is part of a larger
problem in the overall curriculum statement which refers
appropriately to such capabilities emerging
‘authentically’ within activities in the learning areas.
The capabilities include ‘relating to others’ (skills
such as those for empathy, collaboration) and
self-regulation. These are essential in science as much as
other learning areas, but there is no guidance in the
science curriculum as to how these are to arise
authentically.
“Each of these (and the wider content
detail) raise questions of teaching capability, in two
senses. We know that high level skills and knowledge are
needed by teachers to teach science and that we have had
limitations in the specialist knowledge and skills needed.
In the first instance professional learning and development
will be essential, and the components of effective
professional learning and development are very costly to do
well. Similarly, teacher education which enables high levels
of science specialty teaching will be essential. The second
capability issue follows from the very strong requirement in
the overall curriculum for assessment and monitoring for
evaluating progress and guidance. Yet a psychometrically
robust and locally relevant tool, based on the new
curriculum does not exist in science. These two capability
issues are likely to mean the current variability and low
levels of achievement in science from Y4-8 will not be
solved in the short term.”
No conflicts of
interest.
Dr Michael Edmonds, President of the NZ
Institute of Chemistry, comments:
“A good
understanding of basic science is not only valuable for
those who seek future careers in science, engineering and
health sciences, it also helps develop citizens who are less
likely to be fooled by charlatans and purveyors of
pseudoscience.
“The new science curriculum scaffolds
core scientific facts and principles in a way which should
support student learning, if it is delivered by teachers who
have received sufficient resources and training to support
the curriculum with hands on demonstrations and practical
examples of how science can and has been used to improve the
world around us. I hope that the government’s previous
commitment to provide $39.9 million dollars of science kits
to all schools with students in Years 0 to 8 is one way this
curriculum will be translated into positive practical
experiences of scientific enquiry for students, and can only
hope that further science kits will be made available to
year 9 to 13 students in order to maintain their curiosity
and passion for science.”
No conflicts of
interest.
Our aim is to promote accurate, evidence-based reporting on science and technology by helping the media work more closely with the scientific community.
The Science Media Centre is New Zealand’s only trusted, independent source of information for the media on all issues related to science. Thousands of news stories providing context from and quoting New Zealand researchers have been published as a direct result of our work.
Source link