Skip to main content
Log in

Negotiating values for the science curriculum: The need for dialogue and compromise

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

Abstract

Recently, a Curriculum Framework has been developed and mandated for implementation in all school systems— government, Catholic and independent— in Western Australia (WA). A statement of core shared values is a significant part of the Framework. The curriculum is divided into eight learning area statements, science being one of these. The Science Learning Area Statement, with its roots in the Australian Education Council (1994) statement on science, includes a definition of science and a rationale for teaching it in schools; major outcome statements concerned with working scientifically and developing conceptual understandings; principles for science learning, teaching and assessment; and sections about science as it relates to different phases of schooling, and how science can be integrated into other areas of the curriculum. Thirty two core shared values have been espoused as integral to the Cirriculum Framework. These values have been clustered into five main statements: a pursuit of knowledge and a commitment to achievement of potential; self acceptance and respect for self; respect and concern for others and their rights; social and civic responsibility; and environmental responsibility. One of the main tasks for us as writers of the Science Learning Area Statement was to explicate the core shared values into a description of the science curriculum. This article documents, from our point of view, the process by which a mandated set of core shared values were incorporated into a statement describing the curriculum in the science learning area. The process was under the direction of a Science Learning Area Committee. At several points, conflict, or potential conflict, about the interpretation of the core shared values in relation to science in the classroom was resolved by negotiation amongst ourselves in the first instance, the Science Learning Area Committee, and the Values Consultative Group. While the central narrative in this paper is about our journey through the process, there are the antecedent themes relating to how and why the core shared values were developed and subsequently mandated. The arising tensions, as yet unexplored, relate to how, or even whether, the values might be explicated in science classrooms. In reflecting on these tensions, we provide a re-analysis of some of the issues in school science, which of course are not new. We believe that science as taught in classrooms cannot be value-free, even when teachers believe otherwise.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Australian Education Council. (1994).A statement on science for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caple, K. (1996, September).Values in education: National Professional Development Program (NPDP). Paper presented at the Australian Council for Education Administration and the Australian College of Education National Conference, Perth.

  • Cross, R. (1995). Conceptions of scientific literacy.Research in Science Education, 25(2), 150–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curriculum Council. (1997).Curriculum framework: Consultation Draft. Perth, Western Australia: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curriculum Council. (1998).Curriculum framework. Perth, Western Australia.: Author.

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). National standards and assessment: Will they improve education?American Journal of Education, 102, 478–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom,Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (1994). Playing at catastrophe: Ecopolitical education after post structuralism.Educational Theory, 44(2), 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halstead, M. (1996). Values and values education in schools. In J. M. Halstead, & M. J. Taylor (Eds.),Values in education and education in values (pp. 3–14). London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haydon, H. (1997).Teaching about values: A new approach. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, B. (1991).Values education in Australian schools. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1988). Science, objectivity and feminist values.Feminist Studies, 14, 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, C. (1996). Is it fair science? School science stories of discovery. In E. Godfrey (Ed.),Proceedings of the Second Australasia and South Pacific Region GASAT Conference (pp. 86–95). Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, C. (1997). The representation of “acid” in school chemistry: From concept to fact.Chemeda: The Australian Journal of Chemical Education, 46, 8–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. (1995).Beliefs and values in science education. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J. (1998). Capacity building in science: Support the vision, renounce the tabula rasa.Studies in Science Education, 31, 71–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smythe, J. (1993).Education and economic rationalism: Have we lost our way? Adelaide, South Australia: The Flinders University of South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, J., & Dow, A. (1997).What's wrong with outcomes? Spotter planes, action plans, and targeted groups at the margins of the educational landscape.Occasional paper No 11. Adelaide, South Australia: The Flinders University of South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spady, W. (1993).Outcomes-based education. Belconnen, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spady, W. G. (1994). Choosing outcomes of significance.Educational Leadership, 51(6), 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spady, W. G., & Marshall, K. J. (1991). ‘Beyond traditional outcome-based education.’Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism and science education.Science Education, 74, 387–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, S., & Johnston, J. (1998). Is it possible to base systemic curriculum reform on principles of social justice? In C. Keitel (Ed.),Social justice and mathematics education. Gender, class, ethnicity, and the politics of schooling (pp. 123–134). Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan J. Gribble.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gribble, S.J., Rennie, L.J., Tyson, L. et al. Negotiating values for the science curriculum: The need for dialogue and compromise. Research in Science Education 30, 199–211 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461628

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461628

Keywords

Navigation