The role of science in the curriculum

It seems that science is seen as a necessary preparatory experience for life in a technologically framed world, where innovation and knowledge cre- ation are seen as key to economic success for the individual and the nation. So what is it about science that could have led policy makers to this conclusion?

If the study of science is meant to underpin a technology dependent culture, why is science and not technology itself the core subject? Is it because the ‘pure’ sciences underpin subjects such as engineering and computer science, biomedical sciences and material science? Will knowledge of the sciences aid an understanding of these more applied fields? The domains of science chosen for the school curriculum, especially that of the primary key stages, do not obviously suggest this. Indeed, it is dif- ficult to infer the logic behind the selection of content in the school science curriculum beyond a clear desire to represent the three traditional school subjects of biology, physics and chemistry. These selections may reflect the personal histories and allegiances of those who wrote the curriculum since they do not necessarily map onto any significant practice of science beyond school. After that an air of stamp collecting invades the UK science curricula, with a smattering of pretty examples from a range of countries in the album. Clear linking themes, or big ideas, or even progres- sion of understanding across the elements or the key stages are, however, sometimes hard to discern.

The identified skill sets behind the curriculum show a welcome coher- ence in contrast, since they are present in all four key stages. These skills are set out in detail in Chapter 2 and I will not repeat them here. The key skills are predicated on an experimental model of science, where hypo- theses are tested through investigation and observation and conclusions drawn based on the evidence accumulated. However, this model of science, and the so-called scientific method, is only one approach to the development of scientific understanding. The use of models in science, as discussed in Chapter 6, is just one alternative. It is not clear why we devote

11 years of schooling to one experimental method, or why even then we do not apparently teach this very well, hypothesising being particularly poorly developed (see the House of Lords 2001 and House of Commons 2002 reports on this topic). As pointed out in Chapter 3, the competencies credited in tests of science learning used in England can equally well be

ANGELA MCFARLANE

acquired through drill and practice as through an experimental approach. Moreover, there is very good evidence that if it is understanding of scientific content that is the objective, the experimental approach leaves much to be desired (see McFarlane and Sakellariou 2002 for a discussion of this).

A skill set vital to science that is not even mentioned within the defined curriculum is the ability to recognise and take part in reasoned, evidence- based discussion. This may be because this skill set is not unique to science, but is central to an active intellectual life in any knowledge domain in western society. However, there is little evidence of reasoned discussion elsewhere in the curriculum, even as a desired cross-curricular aspiration in the introductory parts of the curriculum orders (which encapsulate many worthy aims but rarely seem to influence practice in teaching or assessment). Fortunately, despite this absence in the curriculum orders, debate and argumentation have been the subject of a small number of highly important research and development projects and are certainly achieving prominence in post–16 science courses, particularly those dealing with bioethics, such as the Salters-Nuffield A-level biology course.

The ability to recognise and distinguish between ideas and beliefs is at the heart of this process and in an ever more complex world is a vital skill set for everyone who ever has to make a choice about the use of technology – either for themselves, a dependant or society at large. We are faced daily with questions about our own behaviours that affect others directly through the process of globalisation – from which brand of coffee to buy, to vaccinating our children, to who we should vote for if we care about climate change policy. All of these issues have at their heart a need to understand and respond to a range of views, arguments and counter- arguments in order to make an informed personal choice. We also need to

be able to recognise when we and others make decisions from the head or the heart, using ideas or beliefs, evidence or instinct. This is not about making the right choice, it is about making informed choice; not about being told what to think or do, but to understand how and why we think and act and to take responsibility for the consequences. And all the while to recognise that there will always be a degree of uncertainty, and that

there is almost never an entirely risk-free answer.

It will be clear from the above that there is much debate concerning the nature and purpose of school science (see House of Lords 2000). If we consider purpose, is the main purpose of school science to winnow out what will inevitably be a minority for a science-related career, or to prepare all for active participation in a scientifically based culture? Arguably, at the moment the school science curriculum in the UK does neither well and in fact needs to do both, with scientific literacy a requisite for all. We have only to look at the level of science discourse in the popular media to realise that whatever else science education has achieved in the last 100 years, general scientific literacy is not among the accolades we can boast. We have, however, been good in the past at educating science specialists. The

ICT AND PRIMARY SCIENCE – WHERE ARE WE GOING ?

UK leads the world in a range of scientific and technology enterprises as a result, and we must not forget this in the gloom that tends to attach to policy debates around science education. However, even here there is no room for complacency; we have lost ground as undergraduate recruitment stagnates and the numbers taking any science post-16 are not growing. 1

As I have suggested, it is easy to find evidence of our poor scientific literacy in the popular media, where even on otherwise intellectually robust platforms we daily hear such remarks as ‘we need to be able to buy our vitamins free of chemicals’ (as in a piece on threatened EU legislation on dietary supplements on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4). A recent exchange in a weekend broadsheet was more thought provoking. A short and admittedly light-hearted piece advised readers not to look up information on their health worries on the Internet on a Friday as the result would be a certainty that they did indeed have a terminal com- plaint. The weekend would then be ruined as they waited and worried until Monday to get the reassurance they needed from a doctor that this was not in fact the case. The following week saw a response from a reader who had secured the treatment she needed for her daughter and avoided the loss of sight in one of her eyes with the aid of information and support she had accessed through the Internet. A rare condition – unlikely to be seen by an individual GP – was diagnosed, a worldwide community of sufferers and their parents joined and consulted, and a child’s life changed immeasurably through the use of communications technology.

Surely an objective of good scientific education in the information age should be to equip learners with the skill sets they need to deal with either of the situations described? Indeed, patients turning up with printouts from the Internet is now commonplace for primary healthcare profes- sionals and the ‘expert patient’ initiative is a web-based project backed by the National Health Service to encourage patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes and arthritis to share information and experience in order to make living with their condition as easy as possible.

The role of science in the curriculum