Science in Curriculum 1

JUSTIFY THE PLACE OF SCIENCE IN THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM

By Adetokunbo Sobowale

PGCE Secondary Science with Biology

Dr Ade Magaji (Lorraine Smith)

University of Greenwich

London

26.10.2016

Word Count: 2043

 Science in Curriculum 2

INTRODUCTION

“The curriculum is concerned with what is planned, implemented, taught, learned,

educated and researched in schools at all levels of education. The word curriculum is from
the Latin currere, meaning ‘a course to be run, or the running of the course,’ and usually is
defined as the course of study at an educational institution. (Mckernan, 2008, pg 4)”. Does
this quote from Mckernan, (2008) not suggest that a school curriculum may be more complex
than it would seem at first sight? This quote will set the tone for what is going to be
discussed. Two definitions were given in Mckernan, (2008)’s perceptive of a curriculum and
therefore it would only seem fair to evaluate and contextualise aspects of both the former
definition, “The curriculum is concerned with…”, and the latter definition, “the course of
study at an educational institution”. Justification is the act of proving something right, so to
justify science in the curriculum, evidence from various sources will be used to validate any
conclusions. “A place in the curriculum” will be interpreted as inclusion of a subject in a
country’s most prominent curriculum.

IMPORTANCE OF THIS TOPIC

Jenkins, (2013) highlights a previous curriculum reform in the 19th century and shows
us a then-current prospective of education. “19th-century advocates also needed recourse to
contemporary ideas about how children learn and thus about how they should be taught. For
much of that century, and to some extent beyond, ideas about teaching and learning were
dominated by a faculty psychology which assumed that cognition involved relatively distinct
‘faculties’, such as observation, memory and reasoning, which could be developed by
appropriate forms of education and training. (Jenkins, 2013, Pg 11)”. Do certain keywords
and phrases jump out at you? Let’s look at: ‘“recourse to contemporary ideas”, “how they
should be taught” and “appropriate forms of education”. (Jenkins, 2013, Pg 11)’. These three
phrases change with time. Time changes ideas, attitudes, opinions and behaviours, which in
turn can all influence the needs of a curriculum. Ask yourself, ‘would I be satisfied living in
2016 learning a curriculum best suited for 1950?’ Is it time for science to be excavated from
the curriculum or are we totally missing something from this ‘educational programme
equation’?
 Science in Curriculum 3

Earle et al., (2014) suggest that the current national curriculum shows a lack of
validity and reliability when assessing science practical work. Earle et al., (2014) imply that
schools in the UK tend to have difficulty agreeing on the best approaches of teaching.
Considering most schools work under the same national curriculum, this is unusual. “Many
subject leaders express anxiety that any single approach on its own was insufficient, but that
the use of multiple systems for separate formative and summative assessment is
unmanageable. (Earle et al., 2014, Pg 30)”. Confusion amongst education experts suggests
chaos and over-complication of a particular process. If schools around the country struggle to
manage approaches to teach curricular science then it’s natural to question the curricular
requirements of science and whether these requirements are entirely necessary or
manageable. Let’s do just that.

PERSONAL INTEREST AND MOTIVATION

“Most secondary students who were very interested in a S/E/M career during the
studies said their interest began by age eight. It typically grew out of intrinsic interest, parent
expectations, and/or fortuitous experiences such as time outdoors in nature, visits to museums
and zoos, experiences with animals or building things, and exposure to television, movies,
and the Internet. (Aschbacher et al., 2013, Pg 48)”. Was your childhood not the same? I
remember being curious about the world at the very young age of six. Most children are.
Aschbacher et al., (2013) suggest that human beings, especially at a young age, hold a natural
curiosity for the world around them. Would removing science from the curriculum hurt those
aspiring to understand the world around them?
“Scientist may work on their own but contribute to a single body of
knowledge accepted by a community of scientists. While art is about contributing
individualist points of view, science is more concerned with producing a coherent overall
view from one aspect of reality. In this sense, science is impersonal. (Toplis, 2015, pg 68)”.
Imagine an enthusiastic child who is brimming with curiosity to know more about the world
around him for his own understanding. At some stage, as Toplis, (2015) suggests, this child
will be faced with certain requirements made by the science community, which will govern
the direction their learning. The more science advances the more impersonal it seems to be.
Some will not tolerate training, most of their lives, to gain employment in positions where
their personal views may not hold much value. Does science have space or time for personal
opinions or important lessons learned from personal experiences?
 Science in Curriculum 4

THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS

“As science teachers and educators we ‘do not only want to know the facts and to be
able to understand relations for the sake of knowledge, we want to know and understand in
order to be able to act and act “better” than we did before’. (Abrahams, 2012, pg 1)”. I doubt
I have met a person in my lifetime who didn’t want to be a better individual or professional.
The use of science for personal, societal and global progression has been evident over the
past 20 years (especially with developments in psychological, biotechnological and life
sciences sectors). As Abrahams, (2012) implies, science educators and teachers should have
developed specialised minds that can transform knowledge learnt into progressive action that
can benefit humanity. Would removing science from the curriculum have a negative effect on
our progression as human beings?

“The planning and organisation of learning opportunities behave as if students’

potential is predictable and their futures can be knowable far in advance. This type of
thinking of how best to educate students has given rise to limited thinking on the part of
policy makers. (Swann et al, 2012, pg 1)”. As a student each day brings lessons and, possibly,
opportunities for better understanding the world around us. Student potential and behavior is
hard to predict, there are many external factors that influence progression. It is not always
possible to tell what will happen in the future, change is not always predictable. Progression
is at the heart of the curriculum policy makers but people are diverse and hold different
definitions of what success or improvement is. Can I predict your future? I would be inclined
to think not. Could removing science from the curriculum give rise to more broad-minded
thinking within scientific community?

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

Aschbacher et al., (2013) imply that reformers and science students want the same
things, which are: more effective ways of thinking of old/new concepts, more active and
meaningful learning strategies and prioritising student comprehension of important concepts
over merely teaching the curriculum. Is it impossible to think that students and teachers
actually want the same things? Science is in the curriculum and some students over 14 years
of age choose science subjects to gain more scientific knowledge. Teachers plan for their
students to progress and students wish to progress. Simply put some students want to study
science and improve in their understanding. Maybe changing the way that science is taught is
 Science in Curriculum 5

better than removing it all together. Would removing science from the curriculum also take
away the desire of many students to develop scientific knowledge?
“It’s imperative for teachers to acknowledge and value resources that students bring to
the classroom. Schademan examines, African-American young men using shades (card game)
to learn language, strategic thinking and mathematics. (Chigeza, 2011, pg 402)”. One of the
many definitions of science is that it is an organised body of knowledge. However, who has
the final say on content in the curriculum? Knowledge of the world around and our personal
experiences, which may not be seen as scientific, can contribute to developing scientific
knowledge and understanding. For whom does the science curriculum serve more the
students or the working population? Science should serve all. If science does not include any
resources and knowledge from the students’ personal experiences, can students be expected
reach their full potential in any scientific discipline? And why should they be expected to?

IMPAIRMENT

One of the scientific industry’s most important contributions to society is its impact
on a country’s economy. Duschl et al., (2007) suggests that a nation is dependent on the
technical and scientific abilities of its citizens in order to be economically competitive.
Countries such as Japan, China, Singapore, USA and Germany serve as good examples of
where scientific industries contribute heavily to economic success. In times of economic
instability for England, science plays an important role in the economic fabric of country.
This alone could justify a place in the curriculum for science; however, it is important to take
into consideration any adaptations to science in the curriculum that could possibly increase its
contribution to a country’s economy. Would removing science from a curriculum impair a
country’s economy?

“The ROSE questionnaire asked hundreds of questions to 15 year old students

worldwide. Some of the interesting discoveries were that: a low percentage of students agreed
that the benefits of science outweighed the possible harmful effects, many students disagreed
that science made them think more critically, many agreed that science destroyed their
curiosity for nature and that most students do not like science compared to other subjects.
(Overby, 2012, pg 13)”. The application of science in the curriculum has had negative effects
to some secondary school students worldwide. To build interest in science from 14 years of
age (in the UK, after 14 years of age students can drop science subjects), curiosity of our
 Science in Curriculum 6

surroundings is important. If school science education is destroying those natural intuitive

trains of thought in our youth, potential students may be disgruntled, offended or turn away
from science all together. Critical thinking suggests thinking clearly and logically. If students
are suggesting that school science does not develop or, more extremely, impairs their ability
to think critically, science needs to be put on under a microscope and re-evaluated asap.
Could keeping science in the curriculum decrease the number of scientists in the future and
destroy our children’s ability to think critically.

CONCLUSION

Aschbacher et al., (2013) focus on the natural curiosity of children to question the
world around them. Science should always have a place in the curriculum for this very
reason. However, Overby, (2012) makes a strong case for the removal of science from the
curriculum indefinitely. Curricular science seems to have positive and negative effects. When
considering some of the positive aspects of curricular science, it can be said that, there’s a
clear need of science to remain in the curriculum. However, the negative feedback received
from students and education experts worldwide cannot be ignored. Curricular science must be
adapted to fit the needs of the students, whom will be the future of the scientific industry.

No longer can science be impersonal otherwise, many students will continue to

choose other subjects in its place. As Duschl et al., (2007) highlight, science has a huge
impact on the British economy and its removal from the curriculum would likely cause many
negative consequences that could be avoided by simply altering the content, teaching
methods and outcomes. A lot has been discussed here, but the topic is large and complex.
There are still many external factors that affect the teaching of science in the curriculum that
have not been discussed here. To gain a more in depth understanding of the role of science in
the curriculum, some other areas may need to be researched. These include: the use of
interactive teaching methods in science teaching, adapting the current youth culture in
England to the science curriculum, making science more personal to each student, building
science interest after primary school, giving students an opportunity to apply their scientific
knowledge much earlier than at Key Stage 4. The world is changing rapidly and with that so
are our thoughts and traditional viewpoints. As the world changes, the science curriculum
must adapt to these changes in order for scientific concepts and principles to captivate the
general population.
 Science in Curriculum 7

REFERENCES

1. Swann, M., Peacock, A., Hart, S. & Drummond, M. (2012). Creating learning
without limits. McGraw Hill, Pg 1.
2. Mckernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and imagination. Routledge, Pg 4.
3. Abrahams, I. & Braund, M. (2012). Performing science. Continuum Books, Pg 1.
4. Oversby, J. (2012). Research in science education. The Association for Science
Education, Pg 13.
5. Toplis, R. (2015). Learning to teach science in the secondary science. Routledge, Pg
68.
6. Chigeza, P. (2011). Cultural resources of minority and marginalised students should
be included in the school science curriculum. Springer Science. Pg 402.
7. Aschbacher, R.P., Ing, M. & Tsai M. S. (2013). Boosting student interesting in
science. Kappan magazine, Pg 47 – 51.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=99fde8fd-0d40-49db-
81bf-2504e5dcdeeb%40sessionmgr4010&vid=1&hid=4206
8. Jenkins, W.E. (2013). The nature of science in the school curriculum: the great
survivor. Journal of curriculum studies. Routledge. Pg 135
9. Earle, S. & Davies, D. (2014). Assessment without levels. Research Focus. Pg 30 – 31
10. Duschl, A. R., Schweingruber, A. H. & Shouse, W.A. (2007). Taking science to
school. The National Academies Press. Pg 26 – 34.