Research in Science Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 76–82 | Cite as

Progression in school science curriculum: A rational prospect or a chimera?

  • Peter Fensham


Science in schooling has for the first time been recently considered as a verified whole for the 10 or 12 of its compulsory years, rather than for a limited sector of schooling or for a particular group of students. This has also been occurring as part of a wider review and plan for the whole curriculum of schooling. A framework has been provided consisting of a matrix of strands of intended content for learning across a number of levels approximating the years of schooling. There is a sense and expectation of continuous progression in the learning of science. Earlier notions of progression in science curricula are explored and compared with what has now appeared in the national curricula in England and Wales, New Zealand and Australia. The notions of curriculum opportunity and curriculum purpose for science education are introduced as factors that would lead to a shift in the sense of progression from a focus on Science itself to an emphasis on the learners' changing need of Science as they progress through the years of schooling.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson, B. (1989).Grundskolans naturvetenskap. Stockholm: Skola I Utveckling.Google Scholar
  2. Black, P. & Simon, S. (1992). Progression in learning science.Research in Science Education, 22, 45–54.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J.S. (1960).The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. CLIS. (1987).Approaches to teaching the particulate theory of matter. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  5. de Vos, W. (1989/90).Chemie in duizend vragen. Utrecht: Rijksuniversiteit, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. & Woods-Robinson, V. (1994).Making sense of secondary science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Fensham, P.J. (1991). Science and technology, Ch.28. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.)Handbook of research in curriculum, Chicago: Macmillan, AERA.Google Scholar
  8. Fensham, P.J. (1994). Science Education, InShaping the future, Vol. 2, Report of the Review of the Queensland School Curriculum. pp. 301–330. Brisbane: Queensland Government Printer.Google Scholar
  9. Hirst, P.H. (1969).Knowledge and the curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. NSTA. (1964).Theory into action. Pamphlet No. 471-14282, Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  11. Phenix, P.M. (1964).Realms of meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Roberts, D. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education,Science Education, 66, 243–60.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, N. (1988). In support of an application-first chemistry course: Some reflections on the Salter's GCSE scheme.School Science Review, 70, 108–114.Google Scholar
  14. Speedy, G., Fensham, P., Annice, C. & West, L. (1989).Discipline review of teacher education in mathematics and science, Vol. 1. Report and recommendations. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Training.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Fensham
    • 1
  1. 1.Monash UniversityClayton

Personalised recommendations