Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Wiltshire Committee undertook a comprehensive review of the Queensland school curriculum in the early 1990s.
The Australian Science Education Project (ASEP), a national curriculum project in the early 1970s (and the very first such project in Australia), was in part framed by a view of a set of stages of intellectual development that was commonly used in research and development in science education around the globe at that time, and which was derived from an interpretation of the work of Jean Piaget.
This Discipline Review was one of several initiated by the Australian Government, each focussed on investigating curriculum, teaching and outcomes for a specific discipline taught in universities and CAEs. The specific review referred to here was of “Teacher Education in Mathematics and Science”; Peter Fensham was chair of the Science section of the review.
References
Andersson, B. (1989). Grundskolans naturveteriskap. Skala I Utveckling.
Black, P., & Simon, S. (1992). Progression in learning science. Research in Science Education, 22, 45–54.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
CLIS (Children’s Learning in Science Project). (1987). Approaches to teaching the particulate theory of matter. Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
de Vos, W. (1989/90). Chemie in duizend vragen. Rijksuniversiteit, Utrecht.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Woods-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science. Routledge.
Fensham, P.J. (1991). Science and technology, Ch.28. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.) Handbook of research in curriculum, Macmillan, AERA.
Fensham, P.J. (1994). Science Education, In Shaping the future, Vol. 2, Report of the Review of the Queensland School Curriculum. pp.301–330. Queensland Government Printer.
Hirst, P. H. (1969). Knowledge and the curriculum. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
NSTA. (1964). Theory into action. Pamphlet No. 471–14282. National Science Teachers Association (USA).
Phenix, P. M. (1964). Realms of meaning. McGraw-Hill.
Roberts, D. (1982). Developing the concept of "curriculum emphases" in science education. Science Education, 66, 243–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660209
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.
Speedy, G., Fensham, P., Annice, C. & West, L. (1989). Discipline review of teacher education in mathematics and science, Vol. 1. Report and recommendations. Department of Education, Employment and Training, Government of Australia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Fensham, P.J. Progression in School Science Curriculum: a Rational Prospect or a Chimera?. Res Sci Educ 52 (Suppl 1), 65–72 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10092-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10092-4