Science should be blind, carefully taught
The editorial (8.7.23) makes many good points about the potential inadequacies, even dangers, of the proposed new science curriculum for schools. It has been noted that the pedagogical mistake here is exactly that made in the teaching of language and mathematics in schools — all context and no content.
Trying to explain to a university student who has never heard of a verb why his writing is barely coherent is a particularly depressing memory.
However, what the editorial tactfully did not mention is the infusion of Matauranga Maori and the apparent need to "decolonise the curriculum". What we have, in essence, is a politicisation of science under the guise of four "contexts". These look simple and sensible enough, but in practice they are realms of complex moral and political judgement which require intimate knowledge of the sciences (i.e. of the world) to do them justice.
The fundamental elements of chemistry, physics and biology, rather like verbs, have no political meaning, but are necessary in order to describe the world coherently.
Small blocks
Educating students in sciences and mathematics from my and my students’ experience has been best achieved by using small building blocks. If one is not fully understood, students will struggle with the next. This has to be structured and monitored, often requiring repetition.
New teaching philosophies are often devised and proposed by those that did well in an academic environment and perhaps do not understand the challenges that a number of less academic students struggle with.
I often experienced that those students that I lectured had passed the requisite exam or unit standard at school but lacked the in-depth knowledge of the building blocks I was going to add on to. A large number of students, perhaps the majority, who struggle with education, do not have the ability to deal with a holistic approach of general topics suggested in the proposed education policy. Only with a well-grounded education based on knowledge, experimentation, questioning, and experience can a young person then start to understand and question.
Appropriate definitions
The recent ODT article (5.7.23) on the new science curriculum draft contains a quote from a curriculum author: "they will be teaching the chemistry and the physics that you need to engage with — the big issues of our time". This strongly suggests the scope of the sciences taught will be set by an agenda. While monitoring science teaching’s content for accuracy and reality is vital, is anyone else alarmed by the prospect of an attempt to officially define appropriate broad topics for science?
Science, not mythology
Science is a method of knowing about and understanding our world. It is blind to cultural, ethnicity, gender or politics (or should be). It evolves over time as ideas are modified and new data obtained. It is not the place to learn the mythology of a culture. The known body of science is now so vast that it takes carefully constructed curricula to develop students’ understanding of concepts, without which they cannot progress seamlessly from one year to the next. Allowing teachers to decide what they are going to teach in any one year is a recipe for disaster. Science builds on prior knowledge, the year 12 teacher has to know what has been covered in previous years in order to build on it, without that students cannot progress.
A plea for robust, open, healthy discourse
Society is rapidly changing, with many past injustices rightfully coming under the spotlight, but at what serious and consequential loss to our freedoms? I believe the loss of discourse. Most New Zealanders want the best for all of our treasured cultures and peoples, they want to see the wrongs of the past addressed.
But they also want robust and open discussions on the best way to achieve these objectives.
Nowadays however, the terms "racist" and "conspiracy theorist" are thrown around at all levels of society and government as a very quick and effective means to shut down the must needed debate that would flesh out the best way forward. It is basically an affront on democracy itself. Have we become so meek and controlled that we have to hide behind and throw out offensive labels rather than look each other in the eye and have a robust debate?
People want unity and to move forward as one but if we persist in labelling and attacking others simply because they have an opinion different to our own and yet fear open and healthy discourse then sadly the divisions in this country will only grow wider and the blurring of democracy and authoritarianism will continue to the detriment of us all.
From all levels of government through to keyboard warriors, drop the labels and have the guts to speak and debate your position.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
