The ridiculous, “leaked”, proposed NZ Science Curriculum and the bizarre support for it.
Modern science is a beautiful area of learning and professional pathway that was established in the Middle Ages and greatly enhanced by the development of instruments such and the telescope, microscope and others – through their enhancement of the observation ability of human senses.
A key feature of modern science is that it has: objectivity, ethical neutrality, reliability.
The “scientific method” is key: observation, background research, hypothesis, experiment, data analysis, report conclusions.
Everyone acts “scientifically” every day (I even watch my cat do it with water in the hand basin). A child can observe a red element, wonder why it is that colour, hypothesise “hot”, place a hand near (or even touch), analyse the data and conclude (possible with tears).
No one becomes a good scientist without learning the basics very thoroughly – including the history of the disciplines. Key to this are the convenient divisions of Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Mathematics. Many of the important aspects are wonderful developments in the history of humanity – including the deeply fascinating – when well taught – Periodic Table of Elements.
In true science there are no facts – only theories that have not been disproven yet. This is often hard for people to understand as we are often coerced into seeing conclusions as “facts” or “settled science” and scientists as deeply reliable people. The truth is that if a “scientist” is calling his/her finding factual they are out of line with their disciplines.
Human beliefs/faiths are important and there has been much controversy over the years when people have asserted that there is a conflict between belief systems and science. They are two different things and many great scientists have been, for instance, Christians, who understood that. For something to be “scientific” it MUST be open to being refuted.
There is also a significant difference between a scientist and an activist. A person can do both, but they should clearly understand, and communicate, which role they are playing at any time.
I have taught Science (including Mathematics) in NZ schools for 20 years to middle school children (10 – 15 years of age). I have loved doing it and the vast majority of students have very much enjoyed the learning, with many moving into fields of science through tertiary pathways.
This NZ Herald “Opinion Piece” by Sara Tolbert from the University of Canterbury would be the single worst piece of writing on the topic I have read in the last 10 years. This person is involved in teacher education and is exactly the type that should not be. She gives herself away early by using the phrase “scientific facts” of which there are none. That she states; “Decades of research have shown that school science that focuses predominantly on decontextualised scientific facts and theories has not supported student learning.” with no reference or possible alternative reasons for why school science teaching is failing – e.g. underqualified teachers – is very poor thinking.
If Tolbert is a scientist she ought also to know that alternate knowledge systems can only be included as “science” if they are open to experimentation and refutation. It is clear she is an activist and not acting as a scientist.
Learning science is important and like any great discipline from academics, the arts, music, sports – you must learn the foundations of the subject and then apply them in an accurate way to contexts. Tolbert writes as an idealogue who appears to have lost her foundations. She acknowledges that New Zealand education in science is lacking compared to many countries but fails to state the obvious reasons as to why and those countries that are leading the way would go nowhere near the style of the NZ draft Science Curriculum.
She states that some schools are leading the way. I can assure people that the schools that are leading the way in science (and will continue to do so) are those that teach foundation Science, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Earth Sciences and Astronomy completely faithful to the scientific method and the great developments. Those schools will completely reject what Talbot is supporting and will continue placing young people into tertiary study best equipped in the foundations of the subject. Those who follow the proposal that Tolbert supports will place students on a pathway to further academic failure and, most certainly, no prospects outside of New Zealand in any study or professions connected to genuine science.
There is also an excellent piece on this behind Newsrooms paywall by Michael Johnstone who knows a thing or two and is reasonably eloquent: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/the-reading-wars-lessons-for-teaching-science
As I have stated before students, of all ages (and Sara Tolbert), in New Zealand could do no better that to start with Bill Bryson’s remarkable: A Short History of Nearly Everything.
Alwyn Poole
www.alwynpoole.substack.com
The post The ridiculous, “leaked”, proposed NZ Science Curriculum and the bizarre support for it. first appeared on Kiwiblog.