Science and Technology Literature Review
Executive Summary - NSW Science and Technology K–6 Literature Review
Rick Connor, University of New South Wales, 2007
These materials are provided for research purposes and may contain opinions that are not shared by the Board of Studies NSW.
- NSW Science and Technology K-6 Literature Review
- PDF (84 pages, 1.2 MB)
- Word (84 pages, 2.8 MB)
- Published 26 October 2007
Key factors in science and technology curriculum design and classroom practice are the notions of scientific literacy and technological literacy. Reforms in science and technology education over the past one to two decades have included scientific and technological literacy as key elements of standards, benchmarks and developed curriculum. The major science and technology reform documents that describe these standards and benchmarks have established a common set of ideas and skills for student understanding about science and technology as well as making prominent the interdependence of the two disciplines.
Curricula that account for the relationship between science and technology have viewed that relationship as one of the following:
- technology is applied science (TAS)
- science and technology are independent disciplines or domains (demarcationist)
- scientific conceptual development is dependent on technology (materialist)
- science and technology are intertwined with neither dominant over the other (interactionist).
Researchers are saying that the interactionist view is the one that is most consistent with the definitions of scientific and technological literacy in the reform documents. However, research on current international science and technology school curricula suggests that the demarcationist view is the most prevalent.
A solution to limiting the demarcationist approach and enhancing the interactionist view might involve greater coordination and collaboration between the teachers of each subject. In primary schools, however, teachers are often responsible for planning both curricula, so integration through a combined single subject may be more appropriate. But in those countries where attempts have been made to integrate science and technology, subject specialists have expressed concerns about the distinctive identities of science and technology education being lost. Most countries and Australian states have chosen not to create a single subject, but rather have developed a curriculum for each discipline. New South Wales, with its Science and Technology K–6 Syllabus, is an exception.
A number of teacher factors are also seen to be limiting the teaching and learning of both science and technology in primary school. Primary school teachers in general have only modest experience in science and even less in technology. This means that usually they have inadequate constructs for understanding and teaching science and technology.
The reform documents state that promoting scientific literacy requires a teacher to be knowledgeable in science beyond an understanding of science subject matter to an understanding of how content, processes and the nature of the scientific enterprise are intertwined. Teachers are critical to the success of science education reforms if system-wide school changes are to take place, but numerous government and independent studies indicate that actual instructional practices in the classroom generally run counter to the intended reforms.
The primary school years are crucial in developing pupils’ longer term interest in science. It is crucial, therefore, for primary teachers to not only set in place the knowledge foundations for continued studies in science, but also to engender in students a passion for science and an understanding of its significance in modern society. Good science pedagogy depends on a knowledge of and proficiency in specific teaching strategies for science. It relies on teachers who are broadly and deeply knowledgeable and sufficiently confident in their knowledge to be able to change and innovate.
In primary schools, teachers are generalists and not science specialists and many lack a firm background in science and consequently lack confidence in teaching science. Low teacher confidence, particularly in regard to subject matter knowledge, was identified as leading to didactic teaching practices and low expectations in many classrooms. Research has suggested that poor science instruction at the primary level contributes to the generally negative attitudes of students at the secondary level and beyond.
In many countries where technological literacy was incorporated into school curricula as technology education, whether under a demarcationist or interactionist view, teachers (both preservice and inservice) were faced with a number of constraints. These included limited understanding of the phenomena of technology, limited understanding of technological concepts and processes, difficult conceptualising the whole technology learning area in line with national frameworks, limited knowledge of specific skills, lack of personal experiences with the area and low level of confidence in their ability to teach technology.
Studies of teaching practices in science and technology education across primary and secondary in many countries indicate that behaviourist, transmission, whole-class teaching, in which the teacher is ‘the expert’ and the student is merely a passive recipient of knowledge, remained the dominant model in the teaching of technology and science.
Changing pedagogical practices through the introduction of any new curriculum must be accompanied by effective support. The successful integration of science and technology can result in the concepts of science, especially the physical sciences, being introduced more effectively through the products and systems that students design and make and the environments they deal with. Decontextualised learning can be reduced through students applying knowledge in meaningful real-life contexts. But achieving this will require the provision of curriculum resources and problem-solving activities, and will also require identifying specific links between scientific concepts and their applications in the real world.
A European working group on science and technology education also concluded that any developed curriculum should allow for the important elements of uncertainty, experimentation and creativity to be more easily incorporated into the curriculum. Instead of the demonstration and replication of already known processes, a spirit of true scientific and technological inquiry and exploration should be allowed to develop in the classroom.
All Australian state and territory science and technology curricula except those of New South Wales have been developed since the release of international reform documents. With the exception of those of Western Australia, they incorporate scientific and technological literacy in their Aims and/or Rationale. The NSW Science and Technology K–6 Syllabus, developed before these reforms, does not contain specific references in the Aims or Rationale to either scientific literacy or technological literacy. However, the present structure of the syllabus – with a developmental complexity of outcome statements organised across stages – shows evidence of aspects of both scientific and technological literacy.
A consideration for developers of science and technology curricula is whether scientific and technological literacy should be viewed as an intended outcome at the completion of the compulsory years of schooling rather than at the end of the primary school years. A number of researchers believe that achieving scientific and technological literacy is an unrealistic expectation for primary students. Instead, they call for a primary science and technology curriculum that enhances a student’s scientific and/or technological ‘awareness’, ‘capability’ or ‘stance’.
‘Scientific awareness’ is where science content is used to exemplify the nature of science and the technological aspects of using scientific concepts, rather than trying to get students to grasp the abstractions of science. ‘Scientific capability’ includes scientific curiosity, understanding, creativity, competence and sensitivity.
‘Technological stance’ sees students learning technology as social practice where classroom communal activities of talking, writing and drawing in technology receive as much attention as the assessment of the finished product. Introducing the notion of ‘technological stance’ into technology education is a response to criticism that there is a trend in primary classrooms for learning to veer towards craft-based activities only. It is also seen as being more inclusive of both boys and girls by increasing the diversity of opportunities for both making and critiquing.
This is further developed by the idea of ‘technological capability’ where the term ‘process of design’ is used in preference to the term ‘design process’. While ‘design process’ implies a pre-determined linear procedure, ‘process of design involves a more complex view of design that includes discussion, speculation, conceptualisation, modelling, representation, evaluation and critical appraisal.
Any review of the NSW Science and Technology K–6 Syllabus should investigate how instances of scientific and technological ‘awareness’, ‘capability’ and/or ‘stance’ are already present or could be developed from within the current structure.
Teachers must be enabled to devise and/or choose tasks for their students in design and technology that promote active imaginations that foster creative solutions.
Researchers place excellence and enjoyment, and creative teaching and learning, as common elements of effective technology education. The same could be held true of science education. Excellence and enjoyment rely in part on innovation shown by schools and teachers in the choice and organisation of the teaching and learning experiences in the classroom. Such experiences should be related to the child’s own experiences.