I don't understand how Kevin Donnelly can compare the teaching of science in schools using approaches that he doesn't like to the teaching of a 'theory' based not on any data or continued critique of the theory but on a 'proposition' based only on faith.

There is no evidence supporting 'inteligent design' other than religiuous faith and an attitude of 'if I can't understand how else it happened, it must have been God' [similar to 'flat earth' thinking, which seemed reasonable, until, like evolution, better explanations emerged, and after a century or more, no other explanations could stack up].

All scientific theory must remain subject to criticism and questioning [and theories will develope, or even be discarded over time] but let's not try to float so-called 'theories' that haven't survived this process.

As for the teaching, yes there is room for some sceptitism but weighing the evidence still must be the way of coming to any conclusions. And recognising that some cultures might come to different conclussions [and might not weigh the evidence] can be part of that.

The argument that science teaching should occur in a politically neutral context can stand alone without the need to introduce the complication of "intelligent design".

As a former teacher of approximately 20 years, I never found it necessary to provide a social context for Ohm's Law or Newton's Laws of Motion. However, it was necessary to qualify the two with a recognition of non-Ohmic conductors and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, respectively.

It is certainly the case that science can be invoked to address issues of social significance. For example, what evidence is there to support the view that the combustion of fossil fuel contributes to the so-called "greenhouse effect"? However, that is different from teaching science so as to heighten a student's awareness of the greenhouse effect, although such an outcome might arise naturally.

From an educational perspective, the fundamental question might therefore relate to the intention of the teaching process. In the example above, two possibilities (amongst others) are to teach students as to what are the principles of a greenhouse (as used to grow plants) and why some scientists believe that as a race we need to be less dependent on fossil fuel. They are both legitimate. However, I believe that the second requires an understanding of the first.

As a teacher, I would feel obliged to explain what is the effect produced by the use of greenhouses. Then the question that might be asked is, "What evidence is there to support the notion that the combustion of fossil fuel contributes to a "greenhouse effect" on a global scale?"

As I write, I can see much opportunity for teaching and learning in a science classroom addressing the concerns of educationists such as Kevin Donnelly and at the same time, challenging students to address one of the most important contemporary issues confronting the human race.

"One of the defining characteristics of outcomes-based education is that learning is no longer based on the traditional disciplines associated with an academic curriculum and the belief that knowledge is impartial and objective."

An assumption based on the belief that there is an objective reality. Where pray tell is the empirical evidence to support the existence of an objective reality? When did Dr Donnelly here the tree falling in the forest when nobody was there to hear it?

Any philosophy based on any metaphysic is essentially faith based and unfounded at it's lowest level. Objectivist or epistemologies of scientism are such philosophies and are essentially faith based.

“It is not clear that these efforts have improved levels of mathematics and science performance in Australian primary schools."

Hardly proof things are getting worse AND that things are getting worse BECAUSE of curriculum. Lets see more reference to some (non-contrived) figures rather than person-X saying thing's aren't getting better.

"...fads as whole language, where children are taught to look and guess, and fuzzy maths, where memorising tables and mental arithmetic go out the window"

Less strawman mis-representations of constructivism and constructivist pedagogy would also be more collegial to those still in the practice. But maybe that's an artefact of writing for the popular press. Then again, it's common practice for the Libs to distort perceptions.

BruceRavent

"Less strawman mis-representations of constructivism and constructivist pedagogy would also be more collegial to those still in the practice. But maybe that's an artefact of writing for the popular press. Then again, it's common practice for the Libs to distort perceptions."

Please could you decipher the above for those of us who speak plain English. I am already struggling with 'objective reality' but the above is just incomprehensible to anyone without an arts degree. I am science trained and appreciate the importance of clear and concise language. I could use all sorts of difficult words to try to impress but I refrain out of courtesy and more importantly so that the reader can understand what I am trying to say. I really am interested in what you have to say.

BruceRaveRant still holds to the 'idea' that all knowledge is culturally based, that there is no such thing as objective reality. To be so ignorant and simultaneously arrogant (the certainty that there is no such thing as objective knowledge is a fearful arrogance) would be a hard cross to bear for most people. But for Edudribblers it is par for the course. Get real BRR, some things are certain. The existence of pi and e for example are inherent in nature. They exist irrespective of which human or none exists. No amount of sneering (and again arrogant) comments such as 'scientism' will alter the fact that in Mathematics some thing are correct. BRR appears to be claiming that proof should be given that things are worse than they used to be. Well, sorry old thing, there is a whole body of evidence that the standards in Maths and Physics at least are well down, especially up to and including the end of year 10. The blame for those declines lies at the feet of the edudribblers within universities and the various Boards of Study. It is they that produce the unarguably weak syllabi in both Maths and the numerical aspects of Science. I note that BRR uses the word 'curriculum' where the word 'syllabi' would be better. That is of course deliberate. Poor old Sajo wants the BRR's of the world to speak English. Silly thing. The whole objective of eduspeak, edudribble, is to ensure that multiple possible meanings are possible. That way they can themselves take anything to mean whatever they like. Obfuscation is their whole objective. The BRR's of the world are the cause of the poor education our children receive in Maths and the numerical Sciences at least. They are hence guilty of mass child abuse or, as the Brisbane Sunday Mail correctly put it, "betrayal".

Sajo, I'll try and kill two bids with one stone. Can't really describe constructivism in the word count (sorry), but Eyejaw gives me the opportunity to discuss what I was talking about; Strawman arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument) or logically false, rhetorical misrepresentations of other's arguments.

Eyejaw wrote:
"BruceRaveRant still holds to the 'idea' that all knowledge is culturally based, that there is no such thing as objective reality. To be so ignorant and simultaneously arrogant (the certainty that there is no such thing as objective knowledge is a fearful arrogance) would be a hard cross to bear for most people."

Not all constructivists hold to the idea that knowledge is culturally based. There are several breeds of constructivism and I am not a cultural (or social) constructivist and hence don't hold to this notion. Further more I never stated there was no such thing as an objective reality, rather that the metaphyscial notion of an objective reality is not empirically provable and epistemologies (ways of knowing) that depend on it can not be scientifically based. My own constructivist epistemology is not dependent on ANY metaphysical position.

Given that eyejaw's criticisms aren't actually of my argument, but rather a figment of his imagination, I don't really have to defend myself here. The danger with strawman arguements is when you have people mistaking them for genuine rebuttals.

Iff you do a google search on doolittle constructivism, you should find a .pdf with a good description of 3 different constructivisms.

The idea that a student's observation is subjective and based on cultural influences has no part in experimental science except in psychology. Obviously every one has a different point of view that will affect expected outcomes which is exactly why scientific method is based on rules and evidence. Experimental design must conform to certain standards of validity and statistical testing. If we are teaching our children that science is subjective and open to interpretation without supporting evidence then we cannot expect much from our future scientists.

It seems that standards of science teaching will not improve until we get actual scientists involved in curriculum planning. Anyone who uses words such as social-constructivism and scientism should not qualify. If they understand the words precision, validity, observation, reproducibility, hypothesis, probability and error then there is some hope.

BruceRaveRant, it should be FEWER 'strawman mis-representations', not LESS. I am reminded of a quip from a colleague in the education faculty: 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach teachers. Those who can't teach teachers do educational research'. To which one might add 'and develop pedagogical theory'.

Sajo, you've managed to make a straw man out of constructivism yourself. "If we are teaching our children that science is subjective and open to interpretation without supporting evidence then we cannot expect much from our future scientists." The constructivisms employed by state curricular bodies don't do this. Like I've said before, if you want to rebutt another's argument, you can't do it by rebutting an imaginary version.

You evidence a need for more research; "It seems that standards of science teaching will not improve until we get actual scientists involved in curriculum planning." Most science curriculum framework designers ARE scientists.

"Anyone who uses words such as social-constructivism and scientism should not qualify." You can't design curriculum frameworks on the basis of ignorance of epistemology, including ignorance of the ones you oppose. Perhaps you could substantiate this conclusion?

"If they understand the words precision, validity, observation, reproducibility, hypothesis, probability and error then there is some hope." None of this is incompatible or excluded by constructivism, but then this goes back to your straw man argument, so I don't need to rebutt this.

Anomie, I'm reminded of a variant of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) that states that an online discussion is getting old when people start correcting each other's spelling ;-) Both you and I know (or should) that some degree of gramatical and syntactic flexibility are allowable within the discourse. This isn't an academic paper.

Am aware of the quip you mentioned. Not really borne out by observation, but amusing to some extent. I know a reseacher who uses the quip on herself.

"The idea that a student's observation is subjective and based on cultural influences has no part in experimental science except in psychology."

And anthropology ... and linguistics ...

Most of Kevin's articles merely serve to bring down government-funded public education in the eyes of the community, and this is one of them. The idea is that big companies will step in once Kevin's much-vaunted (but increasingly less popular in the USA) voucher system comes into being. Outcomes-based education and cultural awareness are a step in the right direction, and the lowering of Maths / Science standards is separate to this.

'Those who can't teach, teach teachers.' Ouch. Pardon my protest: I am but a lowly PhD student and History Major - but I can spell, and results and feedback show that I am a good teacher. Never mind the standard of maths instruction and debates on 'Intelligent Design'; before one can effectively argue at an academic level, one must be able to write. My first chore in any first tutorial is to teach students when and how to punctuate: inevitably, half or more are confused about the difference between 'its' and 'it's', and most cannot differentiate between 'they're', 'their' and 'there'. There tend to be more education students than history majors at first year level; it scares me that many students got through school with low literacy skills and will go on to demonstrate their lack of skills. I do find occasionally that some of my peers have difficulty with these common errors, but this is rare. I think it critical that the education system firstly locates and re-teaches those teachers who slipped through in the past, and secondly, concentrates on the primary school years, where the presently-despised rote learning methods taught me English grammar and spelling.

Yeah, when typing, I'm a big offender of the "it's" phenomena. When hand writing it doesn't happen (I DO know the difference between "its" and "it's".) If I was marking work (in pen), things would be different. If I was writing an academic paper, I'd proof read it. This isn't either, it's an on-line discussion.

As per comments on rote learning. It isn't scored, just put in ITS proper perspective. Spelling, grammar, periodic tables and other SKILLS are still taught using rote-drill-practice. Understandings however are poorly constructed from rote learning (exclusive rote learners on average perform badly on reading comprehension.)

Ever seen what happens when a rote learner takes a repeat exam (requiring comprehension )two weeks later without cramming (compaired to someone who has studied using PBL, discussion or other "doing" styles of learning)?

I would like to say ,"Evolution is Gods potters wheel" how simple is that, many who say they speak on Gods behalf, should try working with politicians because they too have no understanding of the truth,

"Whether Tasmania, the Northern Territory, Queensland or South Australia, science as a subject disappears in favour of so-called essential learnings such as: personal futures, social responsibility, world futures and the inner, the creative and the collaborative learner."

Perhaps Dr Donnelly mistakes for substantive content? The SSABSA curriculum for Biology has the following list of things students must demonstrate to pass the subject:

"1. participate in practical activities;
2. design and undertake investigations;
3. obtain information from a variety of sources;
4. critically analyse and evaluate information, procedures, and materials;
5. demonstrate knowledge and understanding of biological concepts;
6. solve a variety of biological problems;
7. understand how knowledge of biology can be used to make informed decisions at the personal, social, and global levels;
8. use biological terms and conventions correctly;
9. communicate effectively in a variety of forms."

The substantive content of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Biology is very *definately* repleate with 'Science'.

"teachers are urged to make science more girl-friendly, environmentally sensitive, contemporary and activity-based."

Meaning not being boring, engaging students in projects they can relate to, and using topics of interest to them as vehicles for doing and explaining science? OMG!

"a dumbed down curriculum."

What dumbed down curriculum? criticising from afar is fun, but I've actually *taught* Biology in a high school. As a Biology double-major, there was nothing 'dumbed-down' about it.

The real issue is why are teachers not provided with better resources? Why do they have to manage classes of as many as 30 students *and* try to teach them as well? The average teacher completes four years (often more) of university before entering the classroom. They are expected to keep up with their professional discipline/s, with developments in education practices, curriculum changes, behaviour management issues, administrative matters, and tell little Tammy's parents how wonderful their child is - even if the parents have left the parenting to the teacher. The latter being an increasing problem.

I found lawyering less stressful.

"The combination of ignoring the central importance of Western science, by arguing that it is culturally relative and simply one view of science among many, and defining science by what is politically correct"

Reading a curriculum statement is not the same as implementing it.

Western science *is* culturally relative, and it *is* one view among many. Science *is* defined politically. What sandhill is the good Doctor hiding behind? Scientists are not the only people who have an opinion about what science is, nor are they the only people who discuss science.

In the current political climate, 'Western' science is not particularly centrally important to anything - unless it feeds directly into some engineering or industrial process. That's not the fault of teachers or curriculums. That's socio-political reality.

As for teachers 'defining' science by what is 'politically correct' ... perhaps the author ought to direct us to reputable source of practicing science teacher's opinions - not mention some PhD student's work in passing.

As a trained SOSE and Science educator, I've taught both curricula - and addressed student's questions from all four perspectives. Students *should* be explosed to relevant questions about science. [Incompetent Design Theology being neither.]