Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Future Curriculum for School Science: What Can Be Learnt from the Past?

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 19 October 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

In the 1960s, major reforms of the curriculum for school science education occurred that set a future for school science education that has been astonishingly robust at seeing off alternatives. This is not to say that there are not a number of good reasons for such alternative futures. The sciences, their relation to the socio-scientific context, knowledge of alternatives, and the needs of students, are now all very different from the corresponding conditions and contexts in the 1960s. To explore what alternative futures may succeed, the scenarios of prediction, precedent, possibility, preference, and promise are used to review past successes and failures at changing the direction of science education. From these scenarios, some assertions are made about what may, and may not, develop as new directions, and what institutions and groups of persons could be the initiating sources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  • ACARA. (2014). The Australian Curriculum: Learning Areas: Science. Retrieved from http://acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areas/science.html.

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What is STS teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: international perspectives on reform (pp. 47–59). New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science for everyday life: evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Averch, H. (1977). Models and Programs in Science Education 1959–1976. Program Report, 1(3) June 1977, Directorate for Science Education, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

  • Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalising students acting for the common good. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, T. G. K., & Day, S. P. (2014). Scepticism and doubt in science and in science education: the complexity of global warming as a socio-scientific issue. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 9(3), 599–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J., Beasley, W., & Satterthwaite, D. (1996). Forging the vision: senior school science education across Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 18(6), 725–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubb, I. (2014) Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in the national interest: a strategic approach. Retrieved from www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustrliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf.

  • de Hart Hurd, P. (1969). New directions in teaching secondary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all: a reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1988). Familiar but different: some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Developments and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1–26). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: the evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2013). The science curriculum: the decline of expertise and the rise of bureaucratise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 152–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2015). Connoisseurs of science: a next goal for science education? In D. Corrigan, C., Buntting, J. Dillon, R. Gunstone., & A. Jones (Eds.), The Future of Learning Science: What’s in it for the learner? (pp. 35–59). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Fensham, P., & Bellocchi, A. (2013). Higher order thinking in chemistry curricula and assessment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10(1), 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). Towards an authentically assessed science curriculum. In D. Corrigan, R. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Valuing assessment in science education (pp. 69–100). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations: horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C. (2001). Examining relations of power in a process of curriculum change in the case of VCE physics. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 525–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, G. (1996). Redefining achievement. In P. F. Murphy & C. V. Gipps (Eds.), Equity in the classroom (pp. 149–172). London: Falmer.

  • Hipkins, R. (2013). The everywhere and nowhere nature of thinking as a subject specific competency. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10(1), 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2001). What counts as good science education. OISE Papers in SDTSE Education, 2, 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling teachers’ views on the nature of modelling and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D., & Ritchie, S. (2011). Learning science through real world contexts. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 69–79). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirch, S. A. (2012). Understanding scientific uncertainty as a teaching and learning goal. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second handbook of research in science education (pp. 851–864). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust...’ pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. (1973). Science for the people. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. (1994). STS in the school curriculum: a movement overtaken by history? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: international perspectives on reform (pp. 32–44). New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2004). Teaching bioethics in science: crossing a bridge too far. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 4, 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: science education for the future. London: King’s College School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (2007) The New Zealand Curriculum. Science. Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Science

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from www.nextgenscience.org/frameworks-k-12-science-education

  • Norris, S. (1995). Living with scientific expertise: towards a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Vol 1 Analysis. Paris: OECD.

  • Osborne, J. (2013). The 21stC challenge for science education: assessing scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10(1), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, H. N. (2003). Uncertain science … uncertain world. New York: Cambridge University.

  • Primary Connections. (2015) Primary connections. Retrieved from http://primaryconnections.org.au.

  • Ratcliffe, M., & Millar, R. (2009). Teaching for understanding of science in context: evidence from the pilot trials of the Twenty First Century Science courses. Journal of Research on Science Teaching., 46(8), 945–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 125–167). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/scientific literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), International handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: vagueness in mathematical discourse. New York: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T., & Zeidler, D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: recent developments and future directions (pp. 201–216). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, R. A. (Ed.). (1996). The knowledge base of future studies. Melbourne: DDM.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2005). The precautionary principle: world commission on the ethics of scientific knowledge and technology. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitelegg, E., & Parry, M. (1999). Real life contexts for learning physics: meaning, issues and practice. Physics Education, 34(2), 68–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University/Queensland University of Technology, 7/55 Walpole St, Kew, VIC, 3101, Australia

    Peter J. Fensham

Authors
  1. Peter J. Fensham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Fensham.

Ethics declarations

In submitting the paper “The Future Curriculum for School Science: What Can Be Learnt from the Past?”, there are no conflict of interests involved, no financial support was involved, I am the sole author, and there are no other ethical issues.

Additional information

The original online version of this article was revised: The “Vision 2” should be changed to “Vision 1”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fensham, P.J. The Future Curriculum for School Science: What Can Be Learnt from the Past?. Res Sci Educ 46, 165–185 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9511-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9511-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation