Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 199–211 | Cite as

Negotiating values for the science curriculum: The need for dialogue and compromise

  • Susan J. Gribble
  • Léonie J. Rennie
  • Louise Tyson
  • Catherine Milne
  • Wendy Speering
Article
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

Recently, a Curriculum Framework has been developed and mandated for implementation in all school systems— government, Catholic and independent— in Western Australia (WA). A statement of core shared values is a significant part of the Framework. The curriculum is divided into eight learning area statements, science being one of these. The Science Learning Area Statement, with its roots in the Australian Education Council (1994) statement on science, includes a definition of science and a rationale for teaching it in schools; major outcome statements concerned with working scientifically and developing conceptual understandings; principles for science learning, teaching and assessment; and sections about science as it relates to different phases of schooling, and how science can be integrated into other areas of the curriculum. Thirty two core shared values have been espoused as integral to the Cirriculum Framework. These values have been clustered into five main statements: a pursuit of knowledge and a commitment to achievement of potential; self acceptance and respect for self; respect and concern for others and their rights; social and civic responsibility; and environmental responsibility. One of the main tasks for us as writers of the Science Learning Area Statement was to explicate the core shared values into a description of the science curriculum. This article documents, from our point of view, the process by which a mandated set of core shared values were incorporated into a statement describing the curriculum in the science learning area. The process was under the direction of a Science Learning Area Committee. At several points, conflict, or potential conflict, about the interpretation of the core shared values in relation to science in the classroom was resolved by negotiation amongst ourselves in the first instance, the Science Learning Area Committee, and the Values Consultative Group. While the central narrative in this paper is about our journey through the process, there are the antecedent themes relating to how and why the core shared values were developed and subsequently mandated. The arising tensions, as yet unexplored, relate to how, or even whether, the values might be explicated in science classrooms. In reflecting on these tensions, we provide a re-analysis of some of the issues in school science, which of course are not new. We believe that science as taught in classrooms cannot be value-free, even when teachers believe otherwise.

Keywords

Science Education Science Teacher School Science Science Curriculum Science Statement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Australian Education Council. (1994).A statement on science for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  2. Caple, K. (1996, September).Values in education: National Professional Development Program (NPDP). Paper presented at the Australian Council for Education Administration and the Australian College of Education National Conference, Perth.Google Scholar
  3. Cross, R. (1995). Conceptions of scientific literacy.Research in Science Education, 25(2), 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curriculum Council. (1997).Curriculum framework: Consultation Draft. Perth, Western Australia: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Curriculum Council. (1998).Curriculum framework. Perth, Western Australia.: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). National standards and assessment: Will they improve education?American Journal of Education, 102, 478–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Driver, R., Asko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom,Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gough, N. (1994). Playing at catastrophe: Ecopolitical education after post structuralism.Educational Theory, 44(2), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halstead, M. (1996). Values and values education in schools. In J. M. Halstead, & M. J. Taylor (Eds.),Values in education and education in values (pp. 3–14). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  10. Haydon, H. (1997).Teaching about values: A new approach. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  11. Hill, B. (1991).Values education in Australian schools. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  12. Longino, H. (1988). Science, objectivity and feminist values.Feminist Studies, 14, 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milne, C. (1996). Is it fair science? School science stories of discovery. In E. Godfrey (Ed.),Proceedings of the Second Australasia and South Pacific Region GASAT Conference (pp. 86–95). Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  14. Milne, C. (1997). The representation of “acid” in school chemistry: From concept to fact.Chemeda: The Australian Journal of Chemical Education, 46, 8–18.Google Scholar
  15. Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Poole, M. (1995).Beliefs and values in science education. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rennie, L. J. (1998). Capacity building in science: Support the vision, renounce the tabula rasa.Studies in Science Education, 31, 71–136.Google Scholar
  18. Smythe, J. (1993).Education and economic rationalism: Have we lost our way? Adelaide, South Australia: The Flinders University of South Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Smyth, J., & Dow, A. (1997).What's wrong with outcomes? Spotter planes, action plans, and targeted groups at the margins of the educational landscape.Occasional paper No 11. Adelaide, South Australia: The Flinders University of South Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Spady, W. (1993).Outcomes-based education. Belconnen, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Google Scholar
  21. Spady, W. G. (1994). Choosing outcomes of significance.Educational Leadership, 51(6), 18–22.Google Scholar
  22. Spady, W. G., & Marshall, K. J. (1991). ‘Beyond traditional outcome-based education.’Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67–72.Google Scholar
  23. Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism and science education.Science Education, 74, 387–397.Google Scholar
  24. Willis, S., & Johnston, J. (1998). Is it possible to base systemic curriculum reform on principles of social justice? In C. Keitel (Ed.),Social justice and mathematics education. Gender, class, ethnicity, and the politics of schooling (pp. 123–134). Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan J. Gribble
    • 1
  • Léonie J. Rennie
    • 1
  • Louise Tyson
    • 1
  • Catherine Milne
    • 2
  • Wendy Speering
    • 3
  1. 1.SMECCurtin University of TechnologyPerthAustralia
  2. 2.University of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  3. 3.St Hilda's Anglican School for GirlsAustralia

Personalised recommendations