New science curriculum – Expert Reaction

“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.

“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.