This is a response to the text Building an effective science curriculum with an effective nature of science component by Rosemary Hipkins (2012) which covers the development of the science curriculum and the struggles its authors have faced in trying to encourage teachers to place more emphasis on the nature of science (NoS). The text can be viewed here. Please note that I have added notes and highlighted sections of the text.
Teaching is an incredibly busy job. I haven't met a teacher who would argue otherwise. When I signed up to be a teacher (because that's how it works right?) I really had no idea. Prioritising how we spend our time is so essential to keep from burning out.
This is perhaps why not many of us take the time to dig deep into interpreting the intentions of the New Zealand Curriculum document. What generally happens when it comes to planning is that emphasis tends to go on the What are we going to teach? and less on thoroughly analysing how the puzzle pieces of the achievement objectives all fit together. Hipkins (2012) says, "teachers are being asked to join the dots themselves" which we simply don't have the capacity to do, and I think for many of us, the genuine knowledge of how to do it.
Through the iterations of change that have attempted to bring about greater focus on NoS, I kept thinking, is this where the Science Teaching Leadership Placement has emerged from? Creating a complete shift in how science is planned for and delivered will be impossible to achieve through a few paragraphs in a ministry document. It will be impossible to achieve through PD courses advocating for NoS-based science. But it might be possible if individuals are immersed in the nature of science for an extended period of time, provided with time and opportunities to unpack some of those curriculum intentions, and then take all of the learning back into their schools and communities to insight change from the inside. Very convert, government; nice work.
Comments