Specific suggestions put forward in the Questionnaire responses
For each of the fol owing suggestions, indicate whether you think it should be C (Clarified), I (Ignored), or
(Changed). Add notes if you like. Please return your appraisal to me and we will collate for our F2F hui.
C – I –
Q2:
statements throughout, especial y the Big Ideas, such as '.. .thus
The relationship with te
enabling their participation in society'…should be ‘society and the
ao Māori section makes
environment'. This would bring mātauranga Pūtaiao right up into
it clear how Science and the heart of the big ideas.
mātauranga Pūtaiao are
related.
I think a diagrammatic representation may be helpful here - for
example how does "science" fit into a te ao Māori perspective?
(LM=learning matrix)
In LM under subheading of What does this look like at Curriculum
Level 6? is the statement “…students begin to understand the
nature of mātauranga Pūtaiao and the nature of Science.”. Do
they ‘begin’ to do this at Level 6? - should have begun this at Level
1/2. - word needs to change to better reflect the 11 years of
learning and making meaning that has gone before. This level is
potentially the last level of learning for many students as a
significant proportion of Y11 students will not elect specialist
sciences in Level 7+. This word needs to describe more than the
beginning.
Q3:
Big Ideas and the Matrix are written as outcome descriptors,
The introduction to the
indicated by verbs “investigating”, communicating etc.
Learning Matrix explains Reword these???
its structure and how it
can be used.
Q4:
If the expectation in this Big Idea is that the Mātauranga Pūtaiao
Big Idea 1 - Investigating AND science is used to generate and evaluate knowledge, then it
in Science reflects a Big
must also be a stated expectation in the AS 1.1.
Idea of Science at Level 6 Standard uses “MAY” whereas LM uses “AND” – need to clarify
of the New Zealand
that the idea is inclusive but assessment is not? TF
Curriculum.
“the rigour of the evidence generated. Al steps are important to
ensure the findings of an investigation are robust and fit for
under the Official Information Act
purpose” is above level 6 and language is inappropriate. To
evaluate the rigour of the evidence involves a lot of statistical
analysis and is beyond L6. Use reliability or accuracy - such words
are better aligned with the terminology used in the science field.
The lack of the word 'practical' in the title
Q5:
definition of “engage”. . It would easily be better if there was an
Big Idea 2 - Use Science
option for an action, and if that option was taken, that action then
to engage in real world
to be critiqued. But if there was no action taken (and that’s just
Released
issues reflects a Big Idea fine any many circumstances) then an explanation of why.
of Science at Level 6 of
the New Zealand
Curriculum.
resist the 'creep downwards' of topics. e.g. Climate change, ocean
acidification - best done at L2 or L3. Once over lightly at L1 of some
topics can often desensitise students to the complexities at L2 or
L3.
- make sure that there are lists of topics that are L1 appropriate.
-make sure that students learn how to effectively decode useful
diagrams, data and images and that they can relate these to what
they are learning.
The phrasing “evidence based opinion” needs to be changed, the
wording in the curriculum is better - “evidence based conclusion”.
Q6:
The statement: "Developments in culture, history, technology, and
Big Idea 3 - Science as a
philosophical viewpoints have changed what science can explain"
Human Endeavour
should be flipped to say: "that scientific explanations can change
reflects a Big Idea of
cultural, historical, technological, and philosophical viewpoints"
Science at Level 6 of the
New Zealand Curriculum.
Q8:
the label "Knowledge Big Ideas" is only explained/used once in the
The Knowledge Big Ideas pre-amble to the Matrix. Use this more consistently in the
from the contextual
document instead of trying to work out the difference between OF
strands (in the column
and ABOUT
. Implement this. TF
on the left of the
Why not put the AO’s at the tops of each column and then an
Act
Learning Matrix) reflects explanation of them. Experienced teachers have been using the
the important "content" AO’s for years and the explanations could be used to further
of Science at Level 6 of
expand the intention. This ensures that the matrix aligns with NZC,
the New Zealand
keeps language consistent, and reduces the issue of teachers
Curriculum.
having to compare two documents to try and understand what is
being asked of us to teach students.
Clarify that this is instead of
the AOs? TF
Information
need a comprehensive set of concept statements for each of the
four “content” strands if we are to really be able to say that we
have established the Significant Learning for science at Level 6.
I like the Material World linked Big Idea of Matter because the
Official
points underneath it have an underlying theme directly related to
the Big Idea title in bold moving from observations at a
macroscopic level to a micro
the scopic level. This is a fundamental skill
in Material World endeavors. The teacher can design learning
experiences that revisit these ideas over and over throughout the
year no matter what the context. This wil give students many
opportunities to develop a deep understanding of this significant
learning. Long has re
under search on memory, learning, and
understanding told us that this is the best way to encourage long-
term memory, deep understanding, and fewer misconceptions in
learners. The other Big Ideas are so detailed that teachers will only
design learning experiences giving students one opportunity to
make meaning. Students wil be forced to rote learn, teachers wil
complain that even though students passed the standard, they
don’t remember anything going into the next year and that they
Released never have time to actually get into learning, revisit it, and find
misconceptions, let alone address them.
Living World:
The focus seems to be solely on genetics. Missing life processes
and wider ecology. Ecology feels like it would be important in
Mātauranga Pūtaiao.
'At the population level, process of evolution drives the diversity of
life' is a statement in one of these big ideas. Evolution ONLY
operates on individuals! NOTHING 'drives the diversity of life' -
diversity just is.
Specifically to do with living sciences - there is no mention of life
processes within the matrix however is one of the 3 key bul et
points within the NZC. Instead the statement all living things are
interconnected has been stated to be about genetics. The term
interrelated is itself better used regarding ecosystems and the
interactions between species. Instead the first section should be
something like all living things have similarities. This is an
important aspect of the NZC as it allows students to understand
how living things survive and therefore often al ows them to
understand how their own bodies work. Also if students don’t
understand the process of photosynthesis for example, then they
cannot understand the threat of deforestation to other species or
the role plants can play in carbon fixation. The heavy focus on
genetics seems to reflect the L1 genetics external rather than
reflecting the NZC which places genetics under evolution.
Therefore genetics and evolution aspects should be simplified
under one heading within the matrix to better align to the NZC
Act
Biology examples focus on content that has typical y been above
L6, for example discussing selective breeding or genetic
manipulation has previously been NCEA L3 content. I do not
believe that these topics could be done wel enough, clearly or
simplified without causing significant misconceptions to facilitate
learning. Therefore the examples need to be re-written to ensure
they align with the NZC and provide teachers with proper guidance
of the appropriate learning that could take place as there are no
longer content assessments that would provide an indication of
Information
the appropriate level of learning.
an understanding of life process and ecology is extremely
important in Mātauranga Pūtaiao, and can be seen in both
kaitiakitanga and tikanga. Examples include: how the tikanga of
harvesting harakeke relates to the life process of the plant; Iwi
resource management for things like eeling, and how it relates to
Official
the life process of the eels, and their role in the ecosystem. These
contexts are probably some of the richest areas for exploring
Mātauranga Pūtaiao. Also, most pseudoscience in the health and
the
wellness sector relate to a misunderstanding of life processes (eg.
Detox diets).
Material World:
needs to go into more depth. There seems to be a misalignment
between the main contextual idea (all matter is made of particles),
and the examples given. Dyes sound like a cool context, but the
under
chemistry of dyes is more complex than what I would think to look
at for L6. Same with the chemistry and toxicology of 1080. I think
the kaimoana example is good. Ernest Rutherford's contribution to
the model of the atom would be a good one to include as well (not
Mātauranga Pūtaiao, but NZ related).
This seems too simplified. Matter is made up of v. small particles is
L3-4 of the curriculum, not L6. I also feel like this is the harder
stran
Released d to link with Mātauranga Pūtaiao, would be good to have
more examples of this as the ones mentioned are not super
inspiring to me.
not too sure how a L1 student could understand the chemistry of
1080? - apart from its solubility perhaps.
Physical World
I commend that there is one bolded significant learning and
suggest that it is kept. All under it should go! Again, it is a very
specialist list better placed in a specialist course NCEA Level 2+. It is
a very western/reductionist list of items to learn rather than
concepts to understand. None of the smal font lists under this Big
Idea encourage the exploration of energy in our universe or
exploration of energy transformation and transferal in multiple
contexts because the contexts are very specifical y listed eg. doing
work, heat energy, wave motion. I suggest replacing the small font
list with a description that encourages students to explore energy
‘trends’ (from Level 6 AOs in NZC), its transformation, and
transferal in many different parts of our universe and planet with
many forms of energy, not just waves, and heat. This will allow a
more inclusive approach of Mātauranga Pūtaiao and other
knowledge systems and open opportunities for students to explore
energy in many more contexts such as chemical, biological, our
Solar System, and Earth’s climatic systems as well as physical
systems.
I never liked how this was written in the NZC. The matrix seems to
be missing electricity, magnetism, and atomic physics.
Change the language used - A FORCE is required to do work! (Work
done is the energy transformed/transferred)
Act
The physics is a bit if a mashup. This could be properly integrated -
eg: by linking force and energy by noting that work is the
transformation or transfer of energy. But really, most of these
ideas (as expressed) are below level 6 and will have been taught in
Y9 or Y10.
The big bang is not mentioned - this is certainly a big idea of
science!! earth sciences - it is completely missing anything relevant
to Investigate the external and internal processes that shape and
change the surface features of New Zealand. This is extremely
Information
relevant, i.e. white island eruption, coastal erosion, kaitiakitanga
needs to look at more than just energy. Most teachers teaching L6
wil not be physicists, so it is important to break this down in a way
that it is easy for us bio and chem trained teachers to understand.
Deciding which "content" is most important is absolutely essential.
It is not enough to put out airy statements about conservation and
Official
transformation of energy, for example. The SEG must now do the
much harder work of thinking through the key content and
concept students must learn
the
PE&B
I think everything from the NZC is covered in this one, but it is not
super clear. Does it need to be simplified to two? or can we keep
the three aspects listed in the NZC?
Universe - missing anything about universe changing over time.
under
This is not in the curriculum at level 6. - could say 'Space systems
have an effect on earth systems'. this is good for Matauranga
Putaio - good connectedness
There is nothing in there about the broader universe, or how Earth
affects the Sun and Moon or how the Sun and Moon affect the
Earth in other ways. If you wish to focus the changes in the
universe to a ‘local’ context, I understand why Earth is the focus,
but I suggest opening this to include how Earth affects the Sun and
Released Moon and to ways, the Sun and Moon affect Earth in general, both
physically and biologically. That will fit better with the generalist
nature of NCEA Level 1 and enable ideas from Mātauranga Pūtaiao
eg. mahinga kai species migrations being affected by Sun and
Moon.
Q11:
If Mātauranga Pūtaiao is important to incorporate, surely it should
Please comment on how be included specifically in the Big Ideas for the Material World and
the Learning Matrix
Physical World. At the moment it is only specifically mentioned in
could be improved.
The Living World and Planet Earth and Beyond Big Ideas.
Some content needs to be compulsory nationwide.
Need to clarify
our expectation that it is all covered somewhere before the end of
Year 11 TF
I would like if the Knowledge Big Ideas were easier to pick out -
formatting
…click on some parts of the learning matrix to see how they all
connect to a 'unit' of work. Most teachers have not considered a
curriculum like this, as they teach through content alone, and so
some exemplars would be useful
Something to think about later
on when LM goes onto new website and hyperlinks to resources
(such as SLH) are feasible TF
Q13:
interesting to see a comment that assessment will not privilege
The internal and external those with literacy skills yet four reports are required. Further
modes al ocated to each examples showing options besides writing might help teachers
standard are appropriate veer away from writing-intensive assessments.
Act
for the key outcomes in
that standard.
retain some sort of external examination / modular test that is
stand across the country.
a return to the NOS strands and have some content in the
externals mixed in with something like what English has with
unfamiliar text. Students can evaluate the text scientifical y using
their understanding of science.
Science Achievement Standard 1.1 – Use a range of scientific investigative approaches
Information
Q15:
The Title provides a
general summary of the
Need the word “practical” in the title
requirements for this
standard.
Official
Q16:
The Achievement Criteria The standard would benefit from having clearer requirements for
sufficiently specify the
what each investigative approach needs in terms of conventions,
the
requirements for the
process, the types of questions it can answer, and the kinds of
award of each grade.
evidence col ected.
These will be in the TLAG TF
would prefer to see:
Merit: Use and explain a range of scientific investigative
approaches
under
Excellence: Use, explain and evaluate a range of scientific
investigative approaches
How many investigations constitute a range? (2, 3, 4 or 5? - does 2
fair test and 2 pattern seeking count?) Do al need to be linked to a
single context?
What if they do one real y poorly but three others real y well?
What if students move schools?
Clarify and advise? TF
Q17:
Some further guidance around the processing of data would be
Released
The Explanatory Notes
helpful viz
clarify and explain the
acceptable number of repeats
standard.
acceptable number of data points
treatment of rogues
linear or curved data
terminology around variable control
suitable graph formats
use of software for graphing
use of simulations to gather data........
Scientific conventions might be better defined
More specificity in types of methods available for assessment
would be useful, including specific examples.
A requirement for an investigation to be related to a level 6
content AO should be included.
If the expectation in the Big Idea is that the Mātauranga Pūtaiao
AND science is used to generate and evaluate knowledge, then it
must also be a stated expectation in the AS 1.1.
Q19:
The possible contexts
and activities for
Many of the contexts are too complex. For example, ocean
teaching and assessment acidification at NCEA level 1 will be very simplistic as they haven't
are appropriate for
even started equilibrium yet.
exemplifying this AS.
Q20:
One question could be used for 1.1 and 1.2 (presumably you can
Please provide some
do both at once). E.g. Which is better for antibiotic use- manuka
Act
suggestions that might
honey or standard antibiotics?
be useful for the Subject Could involve fair testing with agar plates
Expert Group (SEG) in
Investigation of water use for the growth of trees/production of
further developing
honey c.f. production of penicillin as well as total energy costs.
internal assessment
Observation of concentration vs effect
activities for this
Creation of questionnaire and data collection of prevalence of use
standard.
in student population including compliance questions re finishing a
course of treatment
Researching views held in the community about each type of
Information
treatment
Researching antibiotic resistance of each treatment
Another possible context could be pattern seeking in terms of
succession, stratification or zonation - similar to the L2 Bio Ecology
internal. This could be linked to issues such as sand dune erosion
or rocky shore degradation due to climate change.
Official
You have used an exemplar for 1.1 that is a significant real world
issue and then another world issue for 1.2. I suggest using an
exemplar for 1.1 that is not an environmental issue but a more
the
focused scientific one.
It might be beneficial to point out different places that external
engagement (e.g. community groups, iwi, scientific organisations)
might be beneficial to the activity.
under
If you are going to supply exemplars can I suggest you do NOT use
an NZ context. If for example, you use the 1080 debate, then
schools that would natural y use that context may be unable to
because it’s the exemplar. If you were to give an Australian
exemplar such as the causes and consequences of the
recent/current bush fires then we can see appropriate work in a
fairly familiar situation without losing opportunities to engage
students. Another option is to do something real y obscure or
Released extremely site specific - eg Auckland Islands for a context.
Find a way to get the least obvious areas within the context
strands to fit the standard to show how flexible it really is.
Try and make assessment examples that include the newer
additions (eg applying a mātauranga Māori framework) as people
won't be sure of what you mean by this.
Make sure there are examples for schools that are not living on the
coastline. Give ideas for investigations that can be carried out in
field trips or school grounds that do not require extra funding. Be
good for schools to have data base of organisations that will help
them set up real life investigations so that students know that their
investigations may contribute to something more that just credits?
State of environment reports and citizen science projects?
Clarify where group assessment might be feasible and valid here
Science Achievement Standard 1.2 – Explore a real-world issue and devise a local, science-informed action.
Q21:
Many real world issues don't have a local science informed action.
The Title provides a
If you want people to go for this we need a list of, say, 20 examples
general summary of the
that will work anywhere in NZ, not just towns with industry or
requirements for this
universities or an iwi that wants to be involved with a school.
standard.
Need exemplification to show what local impact might look like for
some big issues. TF
Q22:
“Evaluate a real-world issue and devise a local, science-informed
Achievement Criteria
action.” - implies that the evaluation/justification is on the issue
sufficiently specify the
whereas the explanatory notes say they should be justifying the
requirements for the
action. It would make more sense to say “Analyse a real-world
Act
award of each grade.
issue and devise and evaluate a local, science-informed action.”.
Possible alternate wording: Achievement - Describe fully a real-
world issue and devise a local science-informed action
so, do they actually have to carry out the action or, like the title
suggests, do they just have to come up with (devise) the action.
What's the difference between 'identifying' and 'examining'? What
does the difference look like in explaining compared to justifying?
Q23:
Explanatory note 1, bullet point 6, explaining the action taken. .
The Explanatory Notes
should be explaining how the suggested action links to the
clarify and explain the
scientific evidence.
Information
standard.
This would bring in use of content knowledge to explain
phenomenon
TF
This assessment is just social studies camouflaged as Science.
Make it actual evidence based, concept acquiring, real world
phenomenon explaining, science.
Official
Why is an action is needed? Why could students not report on the
issue, the science behind it, and the scientific merits of the various
perspectives involved without needing to tack on an action at the
the
end?
The focus on taking action places too much burden on our
students and on teachers.
The “action” seems like it is shoe-horned in.
Q25:
Use conceptually smaller topics rather than a larger one e.g. rather
under
The possible contexts
than the big plastic pol ution in the ocean - just stick to microfibres
and activities for
or microbeads.
teaching and assessment There are many facets to this topic - why doesn't plastic break
are appropriate for
down, why can't it be easily recycled, how does it get from the land
exemplifying this
to the middle of the ocean, how do microbeads and microfibres
standard.
affect food chains, why are so many seabirds dying etc etc.
Examples for teachers on what sort of actions that could be taken
would be good.
Released
Should have contexts with emphasis on the Physical and Material
Worlds as well.
Q26:
On page 29 in the top paragraph there is a specific requirement for
Suggestions that might
the action’s explanation to include the point of view or perspective
be useful for the SEG in
of mātauranga Pūtaiao. While leaving the option open is entirely
further developing
appropriate. Requiring this is wrong. It is dependent on the
internal assessment
context, student’s world view and situation.
activities for this
INSERT “WHICH MAY INCLUDE…”
standard.
Change them to read: applying a comprehensive understanding of
XX to inform an action related to a real world issue. .
Try to find an issue that isn't commonly used for the second
possible activity. If diabetes was to be continued with, then the
focus could better go onto kidney function to al ow teachers to
continue to teach the content of the 'Life-Processes' assessment.
Vaping and lung health is important. What about 'borrowing' from
the current Life-Processes assessment and do something on
movement and sports injuries? This was recently highlighted in the
news with basketball having a massive increase in injuries.
teachers, especially new ones, need clarification about the
boundary between 'helping' and giving too much help - Teachers
wil often give less help rather than too much because they are
worried that they are giving away answers - okay for the teacher to
give good relevant background before assessment is started. How
much scaffolding is appropriate?
Science Achievement Standard 1.3 - Describe attributes of Science that contribute to the development of
Act
scientific ideas and processes.
Q27:
AS 1.3 name is overwhelming. The choice of wording seems over-
The Title provides a
complicated, and unnecessarily confusing, particularly the use of
general summary of the
the word attributes and scientific processes. Are you just asking
requirements for this
students to describe how a historic science idea was formed?
standard.
Clarify TF
Q28:
The phrase 'attributes of Science' initial y seems great and I get the
The Achievement Criteria idea here. You want these three statements to be pithy and say
sufficiently specify the
what is needed but then you list in Ex Note 2 the three kinds of
Information
requirements for the
attributes: people engaging in science, science, and mātauranga
award of each grade.
pūtaiao. One of the listed kinds of attributes is cal ed science and
so the achievement criteria only refer to this one kind. Somehow,
it would be good for the wording to reflect that students need to
draw from all the attributes of science. Perhaps the Expl Note
might read "Attributes of Science include the fol owing 3
Official
categories: attributes of people engaging in science, attributes of
mātauranga pūtaiao, and attributes of western science". These 3
categories would be followed by their bullet points as you already
the
have.
Q29:
Good exemplars wil be needed for this standard because students
The Explanatory Notes
may understand how to do a linear 'development' but wil need
clarify and explain the
exemplars of the connecting 'attributes'.
standard.
The rationale helps
under for the why but not the how.
Q30:
I would prefer to see it assessed by examination or CAT with
The Mode of Assessment resource material provided (the English unfamiliar texts standards
(internal/external) is
may serve as a bit of a guide as to the intent of the exam).
NZQA
appropriate.
feedback wil help us here TF
How wil the student that can show this knowledge be penalized if
they write in bullet points or as a flow diagram rather than
sentences and paragraphs?
Released
The concept of using multiple modes for assessment, such as
video/podcast/oral presentation needs to be made clearer - the
'structured report' format doesn't imply that other modes of
assessment beyond writing are available to students.
Q31:
This new AS 1.3 is so different from anything we've had previously.
Please provide some
Some ideas might include:
suggestions that might
The development of mahinga kai knowledge in ancestral Māori
be useful for the SEG and peoples migrating to the new lands of Aotearoa through to
NZQA in further
modern times.
developing external
Explore the changing understanding of nature of matter over time
illustrating that scientific knowledge changes based on new
assessment activities for evidence and understandings eg: from Earth Wind Fire Water, to
this standard.
phlogiston, elements, atoms, subatomic particles etc
Others: Discovery of DNA, Alan McDiarmid and electric plastics,
Rutherford and the atom
Contexts involving the funding and politics of science would
benefit from being explicitly referenced as possibilities. This
standard would also allow for the role of international
collaboration in Science and issues associated with publishing
negative results to be addressed.
There should be a way of sharing case studies between
schools/teachers, to build up a repository of appropriate level
resources for teachers.
Science Achievement Standard 1.4 - Interpret scientific claims in publicly communicated information.
Q33:
In explanatory note 1, evaluating:
The Achievement Criteria Change to - Evaluating scientific claims in publicly communicated
Act
sufficiently specify the
information ALSO involves
requirements for the
(This will then include the requirements for Merit as well)
award of each grade.
Q34:
The risk is run that students are distracted by pseudo-science and
The Explanatory Notes
false claims and that they aren't getting the excellent grounding
clarify and explain the
that will come from the other standards.
standard.
Perhaps Interpret could be distinguish/identify etc
In the rationale it states that both Science/mātauranga Pūtaiao
Information
and pseudoscience examples are expected, but this is not
mentioned in the explanatory notes.
explanatory note 1, bul et 6 - what does it mean to "make a
judgement about the claims" not clear what is expected there.
Q35:
Maybe if it was a load of supplied data and students were to
Official
The Mode of Assessment interpret it - answer questions - analyse it. .
(internal/external)
But NOT in current proposed format.
suggested for this
the
achievement standard is One way to make this fit better as an external would be to include
appropriate for the
some content knowledge questions with short and medium length
standard.
answers AND an unfamiliar text that students need to analyse.
Q36:
This assessment seems similar the English assessment 90854 (Form
Please provide some
personal responses to independently read texts, supported by
under
suggestions that might
evidence), with a science context. Obviously we are not looking for
be useful for the SEG and a personal response in this assessment, but a scientifically justified
NZQA in further
one. This English assessment is worth four credits, and requires 6
developing external
written responses over the course of a year (as well as reading at
assessment activities for least 2 novels). 6 credits to read and respond to 3 pieces of
this standard
science communication seems too much. Should be 4 credits, and
give more credits to science 1.2.
Some possible activities might include the fol owing contexts:
Released The information available to public on the recent Wuhan Palm oil
production and the uses of palm oil
Why Rahui is placed on some mahinga kai sites
The energy efficiency of household appliances
The 'Low Fat' label on foodstuffs