4. Citizen Space Feedback for SEG – Science
@14 February, 2020
Notes:
• This is a compilation of the comments received from the sector of the draft Science products as of 14 February. Engagement closes on 1 March but in the past week
or two we have not identified any new themes. If new and relevant comments/suggestions come in between now and 1 March we will certainly share them.
Similarly, if the qualitative agreement data shifts, we will send through updated graphs/data.
• It is important to note that of the hundreds of science teachers and other stakeholders we have received only 93 online responses, some representing groups from
2 to 25 but most from individuals (from what we can tel , about 180 people have been involved to date). This needs to be taken into account before attaching any
statistical significance to the responses.
• These items are direct quotes – whole or partial comments, FYI.
Positive Statements
Concerns
Things to Think About
Q.1
The Science Rationale provides enough background information for readers to understand how the Significant Learning was identified by the Subject Expert
Group (SEG) for NZC Level 6 / NCEA Level 1 Science.
There is good description of the Significant
The background information is so limited that for
How did the SEG decide which content to put in?
Learnings.
myself as an experienced teacher and HOD science I
Reasoning to restricting to a single science course is not
find this document confusing.
explained and not justified.
I agree with many of the big ideas and how
they have been presented. This would have I was left wondering about what other Big Ideas were Big Ideas are the “knowledge” in a subject
been a difficult job to do in this tight
considered and the process that went into narrowing
a strong, rigorous and semi-standardised set of content
timeframe.
them down.
and concepts that students have to work with is needed
The rationale makes a case for change.
Needs to be conceptual progression, unless all the “Big
Rationale was clearly stated with clear links Significant learning is subjective and science is a very
Ideas” in level 1 science are whol y independent of one
to the Curriculum.
broad subject area.
another.
under the Official Information Act
Explained very clearly their reasons for the
I think that the SEG has been diverted away from
Instead of a broad background in science enabling students
direction they took/ …each of the four ideas focussing on the key' declarative, knowledge which is to move on with any of the specialist subjects at levels 2
is well explained
fundamental to science as if the focus on skil s would
and 3, it seems as though it is now left up to the individual
be enough.
teacher
Released
1
I am delighted to see that the overarching
We do not know what Level 2 looks like. Without
- What ideas weren't included. .? What was deemed Not
importance of the Nature of Science is
knowing this, we wil not know if we are under-
Significant?
finally being recognised
preparing them for the individual sciences in the
- What research into scientific literacy informed the
senior school.
development of the Big Ideas about Science?
- Are the Big Ideas of Science solely the product of the NZC
Act
and the current standards or was some kind of Delphi
This better reflects the structure of the NZC
process used to seek out from experts in each respective
with Key Competencies being in the 'front
field of Science their views of the Big Ideas of Science?
half' of the document. This package enables
integrated learning models
Q.2
The relationship with te ao Māori section makes it clear how Science and mātauranga Pūtaiao are related.
This is an integral part of the New Zealand
It does not make this clear. Mātauranga Pūtaiao can not be
education system and no student could
They are clearly two very distinct systems of
taught without significant input from Māori - with
Information
study Science in New Zealand without it
knowledge. I don’t see how this could be incorporated resourcing and teaching and must include local Iwi and
having a strong connection with Aotearoa.
into a program of teaching.
community knowledge - how will the kaupapa be
encapsulated in these standards??
I love that this is finally prioritized in NCEA
I have no problem integrating Te Reo into modern
A lot of knowledge here is assumed here: understanding of
Level 1 and hopefully this will continue into scientific principles. You cannot parallel early Maori
how this "knowledge generation" system works does it
other year levels 1-13.
understanding with current gene technology.
have its roots in myth and legend, is it an oral tradition, has
Official
knowledge been lost/distorted over generations?
I disagree that they are easily related - and don't see
I think the goal is admirable
them necessarily as 'equal' as the information
This should be introduced at an earlier curriculum level,
the
suggests.
with NCEA levels 1 to 3 being focussed on the science
It makes a positive step to explain how the
the history of mythical does not have a place within
Maori perspective fits in science
scientific discussion identification of which aspects
Science has no cultural construct by definition
Some introductions in the matrix as to how and systems of Mātauranga are scientific, , spiritual or Science has no cultural influence
it links with the science could be expanded
everyday knowledge.
under
This is not reflected in the draft standards, expect for
If teachers from every subject at every school are calling on
the tokenism use of te reo in the standards, rather
'local iwi' to share their knowledge, the MoE wil need to
than authentical y incorporating the ideas.
establish official, paid liaison roles.
Q.3
The introduction to the Learning Matrix explains its structure and how it can be used.
I general y like the structure - its focus on ideas
It is a terrible direction to follow in the scientific
Scaffolded learning needed appropriate for teenage
about science and the inclusion of mātauranga.
learning area.
brain
Released
2
Clear links need to be made between the concepts,
Generally agree although disagree with the
skills and NOS to the assessment tasks. The Learning Presumably the declarative knowledge and
simplification of science in general.
matrix has no link to the generalised statements to
'traditional' teaching is expected to happen, but not
assessment.
assessed.
It allowed me to visual y see what you had explained Note that we seem to be wanting to credential
Encouraging teachers to “start anywhere” is great
Act
further. From viewing this I was able to understand
everything apart from the bul et point “develop an
but there’s a logical sequence to presentation of
what you were trying to achieve with the changes.
understanding of the world, built on current
scientific theories”. Why???
contexts…need to ensure sequence is not random.
Unclear how this can be taught to students who wil this will need some more examples and clearer
Hooray - assessments, rationale NZC and the matrix be continuing to Level 2 Science subjects. There is
discussion to introduce the spiral idea and lead
are all emphasising the same things.
not enough Science other than Nature of Science.
teachers away from a linear, assessment-driven
teaching,
The table of the science matrix makes it real y clear
how the different science contexts (living world,etc) There is also a big weak link in the assessment
. It would be good to see more fleshed out ideas like
Information
can be explored through the four Big ideas. I also
because it could be bent around very little
this to inspire teacher who are not used to teaching
liked the suggestion of using a key context idea, like knowledge of key science.
in this way.
energy, to tie in all four context strands
We like that we can link to local curriculum and
weave standards and content strands together.
I think this wil need some more examples and
Possibly lacks a bit of reality.
clearer discussion to introduce the spiral idea.
Official
This sets Mātauranga Pūtaiao as a valid, relevant,
and required knowledge system to use. I love that.
(not relevant to Matauranga Maori)
the
Q.4
Big Idea 1 - Investigating in Science reflects a Big Idea of Science at Level 6 of the New Zealand Curriculum.
Some forms of inquiry are not science, and we should
Yes. Love it. (BUT – I am concerned that I
teach students why this is!
could not myself "apply a mātauranga
There seems to be 2 different sets of big ideas - big
In addition, evaluating the suitability and findings of
under
Māori framework" and therefore have no
ideas and then big ideas of science - there is a
investigations in relation to scientific concepts and theories
idea how to facilitate students to do this
difference and this is not clear (THIS WAS SAID BY
(i.e. “content knowledge”) is the key skil here, and is what
well.)
SEVERAL PEOPLE)
makes scientific inquiry useful. Therefore, we again find
ourselves unable to escape the dreaded “content”
Released
3
Love the focus on NOS
A potential glitch would be to validly compare WHY
Like the emphasis that there are multiple
This thinking however does need to be started in year different investigations in different veins of science
ways to investigate scientifically instead of
7-10 so that there is more value at year 11.
incorporate different techniques of methodology. That
one stock standard template.
would be very tricky for anyone at L1 to tackle. .
Act
I like how this encourages the exploration of
Investigation is a flexible word and means quite different
the quality of data gathered from different
Also, if this expectation is to have the desired priority things across the range of scientific disciplines. An
investigation types. It wil increase the
of ‘AND’, then it needs to be re-iterated in the table of investigation in biology is completely different from an
evaluative capabilities of students equip
Big Ideas of Science second column (pages 16-18 of
investigation in physics - different outcomes, different
them with the ability to recognize valid
this document) which is for some rows, but
process, different philosophy - without prescribing what
data.
completely missing in other rows.
sort of investigations are required, it is open to misuse.
I like that this is a whole quarter of the
matrix
I submit that secondary data should be used as wel as
primary data, e.g from space probes, satellites
This is definitely a core part of Science and
Information
absolutely deserves its place in a new level
1 science subject
Q.5
Big Idea 2 - Use Science to engage in real world issues reflects a Big Idea of Science at Level 6 of the New Zealand Curriculum.
Gives meaning to Science because this
We seem to be jumping to what wil end up being a very
change really allows us to change the focus Students at this level are highly unlikely to be able to
Official
simplistic set of repetitive and uninteresting “inquiries” for
and to teach our ākonga about Science in
engage in real world issues to the level described.
students to do, without equipping them with a wide and
the 21st Century.
deep set of scientific concepts with which to work first.
the
I think this Big idea is actually easier to
It is unclear what is meant by students “bringing their own
understand than how it is phrased in the
Not really, not if you look at the curriculum document. knowledge… to do meaning making and perspective
NZC.
taking.”
Does this mean learning scientific knowledge and using it
under
I am very happy to see it represented.
But a local 'solution' is not always there
to explain how and why certain phenomena (which may be
relevant to their everyday lives, perhaps) occur? And to
use scientific concepts and vocabulary to explain how
This prepares students for their future
something may be done about certain environmental or
community life and may improve mental
(stated above already)
social problems?
health as they discover their voices are
important.
Released
4
Another great Big Idea and good to see that engaging with real world issues not the core thing we
depth is important here.
do / nor should do in the teaching of Science in NZ.
It's great that it's all about taking action.
Does not warrant being a big idea.
I like this Big Idea because it gives a
framework to empowering our young
Act
people to engage in issues they’re
interested in. It brings in the idea of ‘Think
I am concerned about a loss of Scientific thinking and
I don't think that this fits as an idea about science -
globally; Act locally’ and helps to connect
a greater focus on context.
however I do think it is an essential part of science
young people to their local communities,
education
giving them a greater sense of belonging
and purpose.
This is so important for students in our changing world so that they can have an impact on real world
issues. This also allows stronger connection to local iwi and local issues. The trick will be making sure
these things are pitched at the right level
Information
This matches perfectly with the Nature of
Science in the NZC.
Q.6
Big Idea 3 - Science as a Human Endeavour reflects a Big Idea of Science at Level 6 of the New Zealand Curriculum.
I noticed in the "possible map" of ideas with shading
, understanding how we came about our knowledge and
This Big Idea seems like it is on the right
to show how strongly each aspect is reflected by the
understanding of the atom is interesting but knowing how
Official
track.
big ideas this one seems to have much less. To me it
atomic structure explains chemical reactivity is more
doesn’t fit.
important
the
I think the inclusion of culture and
This is important but no way is it more important that This is a very sophisticated idea and wel beyong L6 of the
technology in this learning is really
particle theory, evolution or energy conservation.
curriculum - most active scientists would not describe this
interesting.
It is better to assess content knowledge and
understanding
as an active part of what they do.
I like the expectation upfront that the
under
processes of gathering and developing
Danger teachers just lecture about the history of
It does show that science is cultural, which many people
understanding in western Science and
science…need to ensure skil s and process is
don't recognise, so is good in that sense, but not at NCEA
Mātauranga Pūtaiao are both important.
transferrable
Level 1.
So important for students to see where
science comes from, and how lots of
All of it (sort of) makes sense and you can see where
different political and ethical etc issues
the ideologists are coming from but we are over
impact on the science being done. This idea complicating something simple.
is essential to science being evidence-based,
Released
5
but also changing as evidence changes.
(already stated)
Good to see this as well - especially if the contribution of women, different ethnic groups and groups of scientists
are also recognised. It will be important that the history studied doesn't just go back to the days of the 'lone wolf' in
the lab. These days large teams of scientists collaborate internationally and any discoveries are attributed to the
Act
whole team. This collaborative group work could be modelled in a classroom/lab.
Need to remember that history can be very recent. For example, the coronavirus and climate change.
Teachers need to remember to take smal er bites rather than overwhelm students.
Q.7
Big Idea 4 - Communicating in Science reflects a Big Idea of Science at Level 6 of the New Zealand Curriculum.
I like some of the ideas in here. e.g., the emphasis on
It’s good to see a shift of emphasis from
conventions of communication that gives scientific
"using vocabulary and symbols" to engaging knowledge its rigour (by enabling a common method
…scientific conventions are, again, discipline-specific.
with and creating scientific texts.
of critique and challenge). I do think it probably
skills such as critical thinking and critiquing information are
belongs in Big Idea 3 though
not generic nor transferable
Information
I really like how you can analyse codification
the best way to teach students to evaluate scientific claims
of science knowledge in Maori texts such as …we are putting students off science by the overall
made in the media and on the internet is simply to teach
purakau etc
emphasis of these assessments.
them more science!. Teaching this properly will include
teaching communication conventions at the same time.
They wil be limited to the context selected and very
little more.
Official
Will require a lot of good 'What does it look like'
Communication in Science is critical and to
exemplars.
have a focus on this is important to
Teachers wil need to develop effective learning exercises
the
everyone. This matches perfectly with the
and collect evidence throughout the year as well as having
Nature of Science in the NZC.
'stand alone' topics.
This also needs careful selection of topics and a list of
suitable ones.
This will be difficult for teachers to implement. Evaluation
under
Essential for students to be able to interact
is going to be of texts and images requiring a range of
with the science ideas in the public arena,
written, visual and oral presentations.
and to be able to understand very subtle
The key capabilities will be useful here. Finding topics at L1
pseudoscience or incorrect science.
will be harder - again there may be the temptation to
poach stuff that is more suitable to L2 or L3.
Q.8
The Knowledge Big Ideas from the contextual strands (in the column on the left of the Learning Matrix) reflects the important "content" of Science at Level 6 of
Released
the New Zealand Curriculum.
6
The 4 ideas about science are far more
important than the content they wil come
whilst the communication and endeavor sections seem to
away with at L6 - all of these can be easily
build in capacity to avoid fake news, in fact this is an
picked up at L7, should they wish to pursue This needs to be ACROSS ALL IDEAS. As a long term
incredibly hard skill to develop. We've tried it with the
science further. The key thing is having
teacher this is TERRIBLE
Biological issues standard and the reality is, unless you
Act
students care about their world, through a
have a broad conceptual background then you sink under
science lens.
the info.
The big ideas should be the BIG IDEAS OF SCIENCE.
E.g. Energy, Variation and Reproduction, particle
theory. They should be wel defined and logical. The
NOS should be linked al content should not be there,
however define what is vital for next steps, assessed
in some way and have clearly defined levels.
the proposed assessment does not actually require
that all the desired Significant Learning, or the NZ
Information
curriculum is actually delivered. This will lead to a
fragmented curriculum being delivered.
This is going to need a lot of good 'What does it look like'
countries who best narrowed their achievement gap,
exemplars.
were those who had a long multi-year arc of
commonly learned subject
The content here seems arbitrary, below curric
Official ulum
level, and nowhere near detailed enough
What if a school wishes to create (or continue with) a Yr11
It is not good enough to say “start anywhere” and that course targeted to a subset of these concepts (like
the
“learning should not be linear”. Concepts in science
L1bio,che, phy or others that currently exist)? What is the
are not independent of one another (this includes NoS core content of these types of subjects? The document is
concepts). They are best taught in certain sequences
of no help with these questions.
that build a progression of conceptual understanding.
there is also a need for some nation-wide must-have
under
contents. The wide-open and non-prescriptive nature
of this Learning Matrix makes it tricky for anyone
outside any given school to know what any given
I think it narrows the content to very set specific ideas that
do not reflect either the fundamental base knowledge of
student learned or understands after they’ve taken a
“science” course at L1. e.g., if a kid passes S1.3 how
these areas of science or the knowledge that wil help
wil anyone know which content was involved? Makes students to understand key socio-scientific issues that are
it difficult for anyone outside of that school to help
likely to affect them.
with future subject selection or capability for future
Released programs?
7
(The following statement is typical of the comments made in this section – very concerned teachers, desperate
for a list of ‘content’)
Although this does contain important content, it leaves us wondering where al the rest of it went.
There is nowhere near enough detail here for a course to be created from this. It needs to be much more
Act
prescriptive
Q.9
The language used in each Big Idea is appropriate for Level 6 of the New Zealand Curriculum.
This will be really helpful for beginning
I would argue lower than L6 in content descriptors
The language in the blue boxes is okay. The language in the
teachers.
and higher in some other big picture idea descriptors. orange boxes varies between far too technical and too
simplistic.
Some of the more abstract concepts detailed in the
big ideas are beyond Level 6.
It's not inclusive e.g. it's shutting the door on students
with poor literacy skills
Information
Basic English would be good. Flowery language is
unhelpful. But you should provide a streamlined
version for students and whanau Too many words.
Too much ideology.
Official
Q.10 The Learning Matrix clearly shows connection and alignment with Science at Level 6 of the New Zealand Curriculum (in particular the Learning Area Statement
p28-29).
“WEAK connections.”
the
The content from the four strands can easily “Not clear at all.”
be found online but learning NOS requires
“Skil s wise maybe. Content no”
more teacher input.
“Not clear at all.”
There are some connections, but it is not well aligned.
Nature of science strand is given utter dominance
under
The matrix aligns so well with NOS, and I
over the other 4 strands, which the matrix only pays
think this will really help push science to be lip service to. The curriculum was designed to enforce
a learning area that is crucial for students in teaching of the 4 strands of Bio, Chem, Physics,
the modern world.
Geo/Astro and the learning matrix is actively
undermining that.
Great to see movement back to the front of While it may show a connection, the alignment is
the curriculum, and away from the AO's.
questionable as the Learning Matrix is such a vast
Released colection of various themes, content and concepts.
8
Q.11 Please comment on how the Learning Matrix could be improved. Where relevant, please indicate which part of the Matrix your comment relates to.
The matrix looks like a good starting point
The contextual strands are too narrow
As the matrix is presented, it looks like a year 10
programme.
I am concerned that there is no compulsion to include
Act
It allows for flexibility and I think focuses on both Maori and Western science ideas - it is only an
four very clear and important skills for Level option. …this new system will still allow some schools
1 that will flow into Level 2-3.
and staff to operate in a Western bubble.
The four big ideas are great, and fit really
…it’s the structure of it that creates the flaws, not the The learning matrix needs to have a significant focus on
well with the NZC
ideas listed in each column.
knowledge of Science. The knowledge component in the
draft standards have missed this entirely.
I think the matrix is well thought out and
The Learning Matrix is not clear and must be
constructed.
clarified/made more user-friendly.
The matrix inform
Information s the standards which don't include the
Links with concepts to further science study -
NZC strands of Science. Which mean that to complete a
especially if we are keeping the current L2 and 3
standard, schools will need to select a primary strand in
This learning matrix is a flexible document
standards and working from L1 upwards - Those
which to place its context (e.g. Sea Level rise) --> links to
that allows students and teachers to follow taking L1 standards, how will they be prepared for
some strands more than others, so pupils will develop
local issues.
current L2 and L3 Chemistry/Physics/Biology/ESS
large gaps in their knowledge.
Official
standards if they are not changed in accordance?
I like that you put a range of questions as
I believe there should be 2 standards at least that
(Several people made this comment – believe there
this will help teachers structure their
incorporate Science knowledge recal . Without this
should be far more than 4 A.S)
the
programmes. They could also give students grounding students wil not be able to succeed in
Creating subject specific standards alongside these initial
a range of questions and then they could
senior science subjects and students wil not have the standards. This would allow for these core standards to be
choose which parts they would like to
content and memory/ revision skills required for
used alongside a couple of subject specific standards to
pursue in their own learning programme.
tertiary Science study.
create Biology specific (for example) courses, AND allow a
student to also do a Chem specific course.
under
Q.12 There is alignment between the Draft NZC Level 6 Science Learning Matrix with the Draft NCEA Level 1 Science Assessment Matrix.
I don't understand whether we are expected to teach ALL
Report writing will also be a barrier to learning for
ESOL (Kura Kaupapa) students.
content from the 'Significant Learning' AND then the four
contexts we choose and assess them al in one year?
Catering to low literacy and international students
While they may align, the statement above the “we do not
with English as a second language may be difficult.
assess everything we teach” is the key. What we do assess
determines where the focus will be placed.
Released
9
I think that this matrix will lead to a significant decrease in
students collecting primary data, rather students will use
research and secondary data.
Q.13 The internal and external modes al ocated to each standard are appropriate for the key outcomes in that standard. Act
I'm interested to hear what the justification is for having a
The focus on multi-modality is commended! Workload, lack of content direction.
suggested word count only for the two externals(and a
fairly small count given the credits involved). is it a decision
that is in the best interest of the learner?
external standards 1.3 and 1.4 being the same report
Numerous comments regarding teacher workload
Real y like the suggested form of external
or portfolio-style is a concern
concerns with the feedback required from teachers before
assessment.
NOT appropriate to assess al science understanding in externally submitted as well as authenticity issues and
the same way.
concerns of marker competency
I think it is great that there is a push to
Standards 1.3 and 1.4
They all feel like internal assessments, regardless of the
move away from content based teaching It's 1. Both rely on students being able to basically rote
label EXTERNAL, the teacher will still be having to do a
Information
great that students get to work in teams,
learn an Excellence essay - this is not a skill that I
significant amount of collation of material and storage etc.
have access to any information, longer time would want to encourage Science students to have,
To give adequate feedback to students, teachers wil spend
frames and can submit their work in
let alone assess.
large amounts of time reading work that is ultimately
multiple formats.
2. Both 1.3 and 1.4 are basically internal assessments
"marked" externally - they may as well mark it as we
I would've preferred a bigger change,
that are sent off for marking to someone with no
currently do with internal standards
Official
indicated by the "Big Opportunities" that
knowledge of the student. Is this real y an external
came out in 2018. But this is a good start.
assessment? Should it be externally assessed?
I worry a little about the investigation standard. . how Stripping examinations away from the entire subject
the
can we have breadth and rigour without
changes the subject completely.
overassessment? Won't students just have to do six
This is all effectively internal assessment, including the
more times work? Although I do like the idea of the
"external" reports. Even the externals have a large amount
multiple forms of investigation.
So fantastic to see no examinations!
of lead-in and content provided before deadline.
Parents are going to be writing reports for students. There
under
But the impracticality of validly and consistently
is no easy way to check authenticity. Heck, turn it in can't
assessing the S1.3 and S1.4 external y cannot be
even be used as students are al owed to have shared data
overlooked.
collection.
Released
10
Limited number of contexts that could be valid for
assessment – too risky. This could create tremendous There are many cognitive benefits to formal examinations.
issues in terms of integrity of marking, plus external
Formal examinations are actually one of the fairest forms
markers will almost certainly not be competent in the of assessment we have. (most equitable)
wide range of topics that may come up.
Act
Q.14 The Assessment Matrix as a whole assesses the most important learning outcomes for Level 1 Science.
Often if a kid doesn't 'get it' - for example,
balancing a chemical equation for acids and
bases - they will learn the process and then The new standards have stripped away content that
My only concern is for schools that do a range of blended
one day, in Level 2 or 3 or university or just underpins learning in L2 and L3
subjects.e.g. If we offer a "Forensic Science" course, we
in life have that 'eureka' moment It's OK to
expected to apply meta cognition to topics such as the will need to consider overlap of standards for students
measure this student's Epistemic
nature of science and science issues when they are
who may want to take more than one science based
Knowledge, since it wil be the 'doing' that
stil novices with little content knowledge.
course. This may be a reason to still consider Chemistry,
Information
will give them the opportunity to finally gain
Biology, and Physics as L1 learning strands.
the Declarative Knowledge.
I fear the big question from level 2/3 or even tertiary
NCEA Change Package calls for a more generalist or broad
level 1 qualification, offering access to the breadth of the
I think the assessments cover the four big
levels wil be .. how do we know students understand curriculum. This is a good idea, but these level 1 standards
idea perfectly.
the Knowledge Big Ideas? How can we ensure
teachers are delivering opportunities across those big do not come close to achieving this. The breadth of
Official
ideas about science?
conceptual and content knowledge needs to be
systematical y taught and assessed in our subject.
Yes. For a foundational science
the
qualification, it is the most important
There is no compulsion to cover all facets of the Big
It over emphasises the process of science rather than the
learning.
Ideas in Science
content of science.
Mostly agree here. But I think there is some
Will there be a dedicated set of standards for chemistry,
'numeracy' aspect missing. Science is fundamentally a physics, biology and ESS like there currently is? If so this is
numerate area
not a concern, but if there isn't then these standards are
under
very limiting.
Level 1 “science” is a multi-headed creature. Not
every course is a “general science” course, nor should
it be.
I do not believe the standards collectively allow for
clear insight to be gathered into students' knowledge
of the Big Ideas of Science.
Released
11
Science needs to be assessed both as skil s and
content, otherwise how can pupils distinguish
between science and pseudoscience. A direct lack of
specific NZC science stands linked to these standards
is VERY concerning.
Act
these 4 standards don’t prepare pupils well for the
senior Sciences.
I am very disappointed in the proposed standards. I
total y support teaching and practising the Nature of
Science/Capabilities etc but they are fundamentally
soft skills that are very difficult to assess. They are all
very broad and will be too much work to check for
authenticity and too. 1.3 suggests students could
submit a cartoon! That sort of task student invariably
focus on presentation and less on the science. Information
Fundamental y, assessments ought to be way more
prescriptive in terms of content and tasks such as
exams/tests where students can be correct or
incorrect.
…moving from L1 Science to L2 Phys/Chem/Bio is
already the largest cognitive leap they have had to
Official
make in their lives, and with the this draft curriculum I
can see that cognitive leap increasing,
How can we find a balance b
the etween the 50% of kids
who finish science at L1, and the 50% who continue?
By amalgamating the strands, we are being pushed
down the Project Based Learning route, which
research has shown
under to be less effective for novice
learners.
Science Achievement Standard 1.1 – Use a range of scientific investigative approaches
Q.15 The Title provides a general summary of the requirements for this standard.
At this stage I have given up. ALL the Science
Love the fact that ākonga wil need to use a Achievement Standards seem to be opinionated,
range of approaches!
touchy-feely, non-science rubbish. So, I will now tick
Released Strongly Disagree and call it quits.
12
My main issue is that there is too much flexibility in
topics, so students don't get a broad understanding of
different strands in the sciences. One can argue that
Investigations are crucial.
these strands are artificial, but for students to get a
good basic understanding, we make it easier so we
Act
can focus on more ideal situations rather than real
(otherwise we could teach acceleration including
friction right away or even quantum mechanics)
Everything is too broad to make real sense of anything
in this document.
this is possibly the best of a very bad and limited
bunch of standards. This would be doable but
tedious!
Q.16 The Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the requirements for the award of each grade. Information
There is nothing specific about the achievement
criteria. It is going to be extremely difficult as teachers
to be able to plan, teach, assess and mark confidently.
The achievement criteria, contexts and concepts, skills
and content are poorly designed. This is as clear as
Official
mud.
Q.17 The Explanatory Notes clarify and explain the standard.
the
Nothing is clear.
not enough standardisation between schools, and the
assessment wil be so varied.
Not sure what 'applying a mātauranga Māori
framework' looks like.
under
Q.18 The Mode of Assessment (internal/external) suggested for this achievement standard is appropriate.
Great to see a portfolio based assessment,
rather than just one experiment. Also good To broad, too undefined in nature and content.
to see students having to
'Structured report' is not very clear. Is it one report for
evaluate/summarise the range of
three investigations? Or three different reports? Are
investigations.
they al the same style? And so on...
I do like the 'multiple' investigations
approach
Suitable for high achieving students -
Released
13
Bit worried that it is 6 credits. That's a lot for a
student to mess up.
Teachers will still be unofficially moderating each
other to ensure that what they are teaching will 'pass'.
To us it looks like “Project learning by stealth”.
Act
Gender bias. It may lead to more boys leaning away
from the sciences
Q.19 The possible contexts and activities for teaching and assessment are appropriate for exemplifying this standard.
Real y liked the examples and could see the
The possible activities made me a little unclear about the
change away from the standards we
The types of data which are acceptable and the level
standard for the investigations required. Are they
currently have. More flexibility for schools
of complexity are not clear.
essentially just 3 lab reports? I was picturing longer
and less prescriptive!
investigations.
students might develop an understanding of investigations
but without caref
Information ul thinking would not develop student
I thought the contexts suggested were
knowledge of L6 content knowledge and therefore a large
great.
chunk of the science learning area is being missed. Also
there is the possibility of teachers picking options that are
not at an appropriate level and therefore would affect
students assessment
Official
Q.20 Please provide some suggestions that might be useful for the Subject Expert Group (SEG) in further developing internal assessment activities for this standard.
I think the group real y needs to unpack what is meant by
the
including mātauranga pūtaiaō. What framework are they
Need guidelines and clarification.
referring to, where are the resources to support teachers.
How might it look if a student uses an approach such as
waiata or pūrakau?
Three-week external assessment window is far less
under
I also worry about over assessment coming with
stressful than an ongoing assessment model?
multiple investigations
When will the internal assessments happen during the
transition? Will it clash with the externals?
It seems the idea of hollistic marking is going to take on a
bigger importance. This will be exceptionally difficult for
teachers of small schools, or new teachers to judge.
Clearly state what you expect students to have completed
so that they have a good grounding in level 1 science which
Released
14
will allow them to apply science to their daily lives as well
as allowing them to move on to specialist subjects
The credit value for this internal should be 4. This is
because the learning outcomes require less learning than
those in 1.2 so I suggest the credit values be switched. The
Act
learning within this standard wil be required for students
to be able to confidently engage and be successful in new
AS1.2.
Science Achievement Standard 1.2 – Explore a real-world issue and devise a local, science-informed action.
Q.21 The Title provides a general summary of the requirements for this standard.
Too broad a title.
I think this is idealistic and has a lot of issues with
implementation at the classroom level and also in marking
Too early for most students.
Q.22 Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the requirements for the award of each grade. Information
…required action. This should be an option… and if the
option is not taken, then an evaluation of why that was not
done.
The 2nd part of enforced or required action.
implies “forced activism” across the +30,000 Yr 11 NZ
Official
students. This could quickly get out of hand and become a
rehash of the top 10 social issue stories even though you
try to keep the context “local”.
the
There is a tension here - what if the proposed solution is
based on poor science but is presented wel or vice-versa?
I can't imagine how much time teachers will have to sink
into finding appropriate "local issues" that are suitable - it
will result in a very contrived and inauthentic outcome.
under
Q.23 The Explanatory Notes clarify and explain the standard.
The rationale states that this is different to a social science
inquiry as it must use scientific knowledge to inform
There is insufficient justification for this standard to
exist.
action, but then the statement linking to learning
outcomes says that knowledge should come from a range
of knowledge systems.
Released
15
Q.24 The Mode of Assessment (internal/external) suggested for this achievement standard is appropriate.
Q.25 The possible contexts and activities for teaching and assessment are appropriate for exemplifying this standard.
'When we incorporate mātauranga Pūtaiao into our
These are great as they give nice clear
programmes of learning it's important to avoid
the pressure to find a “new issue” each year or limit
Act
examples that teachers can use straight
inserting it in. .to Western Science' is in this draft
student’s choices from issues that have been done-to-
away and are relevant to today.
statement. Yet some of the contexts suggest doing
death by previous students wil become an increasing
this.
issue.
We like the activities which are designed to Given that 1.3 and 1.4 can both be addressed with
The quality of the science understanding should be the
develop and show the reasoning behind the little Science content knowledge as well, there is a risk way students are graded. The whole idea of taking action
scientific action taken.
the course gets taught with very little knowledge of
Science developed.
appears political
Due to the idealistic nature of this standard I think that
students will do a lot of 'copying' ideas from others.
Information
Q.26 Please provide some suggestions that might be useful for the SEG in further developing internal assessment activities for this standard.
The Water Quality issue is great.
.
Despite the SEG’s claim that this differs from a social
studies standard, the fact remains that it is largely the
same thing.
Official
The core of any standard of this nature should be using
scientific knowledge to devise a scientific solution to a
scientific problem
the
Science Achievement Standard 1.3 - Describe attributes of Science that contribute to the development of scientific ideas and processes.
Q.27 The Title provides a general summary of the requirements for this standard.
What does this even mean?!
I think this is beyond the scope of L6 processes/thinking
It confuses me a bit.
standard 1.3 name is overwhelming
under
It sounds so boring.
Q.28 The Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the requirements for the award of each grade.
The explanatory notes helped my
It isn't clear.
understanding of what an attribute actual y What are these 'attributes' - such a wool y concept.
is
It comes across a bit fluffy.
Q.29 The Explanatory Notes clarify and explain the standard.
Released
16
There is a good intent to this standard: the
history and philosophy of science is the real
“nature of science” that students miss in
school, and it should be taught when
However, how wil we ensure teachers cover a broader set
introducing new key concepts. It is good
What is expected stil isn't clear to me. Needs much
of content and concepts instead of just picking selectively
Act
that the standard is not attempting to
more work.
examples that fit with the assessment requirements of this
separate out the nature of science from the
standard? Teachers doing this will severely undermine the
content: you clearly cannot have one
coherence of the science knowledge on offer to their
without the other in this case.
students.
I am still struggling to understand what the students
will have to do to achieve this standard.
This also makes me wonder how many feedback loops
would exist to help students as they work towards a final
draft… as well as how authenticity issues would be
managed.
Information
I presume students working towards the draft S1.3
assessment would be weaving content they’ve learned
throughout their explanation of the specific “human
endeavour”. . The trick(s) and trap(s) here is not to lose
track of the backbone of science-concepts that back up the
Official
story
Q.30 The Mode of Assessment (internal/external) suggested for this standard is appropriate.
the
I think this is a brilliant idea for external
assessment. I think a range of case studies
It looks and feels like a moderated internal.
will be very important
The proposed assessment mode is not any more equitable
than an exam,. Students with greater content knowledge
under
The rigor of an 'external' assessment as we currently
will still be advantaged in researching and writing up a
know it wil not be there… not all classes have to be
report that makes scientific sense. The fact that the other
on the same timescale.
external standard is assessed in this way doubles the
opportunities for disengagement, boredom, repetition and
waste of class time on assessment instead of learning
about science.
Report writing to assess content knowledge is not a
subjective method of assessment for the sciences.
Released
17
Q.31 Please provide some suggestions that might be useful for the SEG and NZQA in further developing external assessment activities for this standard.
Literacy, literacy, literacy…
Workload nightmare.
how can a 600 word report (or similar) show
understanding of such a lofty ideal
Removing this standard would be the best option.
too much scope for variation between schools, and too
Act
hard to keep the assessment fair
Scrap S1.3 and work in tandem with the biology,
chemistry, physics, ag-hort, earth and space SEGs as
Though the heading of this standard is a good idea, I don't
well as the various subject associations to create a
think it should be an assessment focus. It should be part of
workable matrix of standards that schools can select
the content knowledge being learned. For example, in level
2 Physics they learn about the structure of the atom, as
from to meet the various needs of students in their
school. This would be smaller than the current matrix part of the content they also learn about how this model
of L1 NCEA “science” but streamlined and able to
developed over the years through different scientific
Information
cater for various schools throughout NZ, various (and
developments. The development of this model is part of
non-overlapping) goals of NZ’s students, parents and
this standard but the standard is focussed on knowledge of
communities
the atom.
Official
Science Achievement Standard 1.4 - Interpret scientific claims in publicly communicated information.
Q.32 The Title provides a general summary of the requirements for this standard.
This is such a critical skill for all our citizens
the
and I am really excited that this and the
Much doubt about this standard – no positive
other 3 standards are presented with these comments.
rich NOS foci.
The title is perfectly adequate, however I do not
believe that this standard is sufficiently important to
under
replace the core learning of the current standards.
Q.33 The Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the requirements for the award of each grade.
if that is all that is required at the achieved level (to
identify relevant science information and draw a
I would like more clarification around religious or ethnic
conclusion) then there is no way that authenticity and belief systems. For instance, there are some deeply held
actual understanding can be guaranteed. As the
and very personal viewpoints around evolution,
report is carried out throughout the year, students
homeopathy, vaccines, 1080, water pol ution, and I would
Released
18
can collaborate in class, and with social media they
not like to bring my teaching into conflict with the believes
will create groups to collaborate nationwide.
held by a family.
Therefore large groups will have the same ideas and
therefore at the achieved level al students should be
This standard has the potential to politicise the teaching of
able to pass, irrelevant of their actual understanding
science in the eyes of the public, something I feel should
Act
or capabilities. -
won’t work as a portfolio gathered I
be avoided
class – use an exam
Students don't know enough to make informed decisions
at level 1 about scientific issues. They need to know a
broad base of scientific concepts first.
Q.34 The Explanatory Notes clarify and explain the standard.
In the rationale is states 'Scientific claims include those
based on mātauranga Pūtaiao, which has its own science
good to have equal emphasis on western
language and conventions.' Then in the explanatory note 3
Information
and other cultural science
Example modes of information communicated to the
Clarify the wording.
public include: » narratives, waiata, mōteatea, pūrākau,
and whakatauki.
this was helpful
Students analysing the validity of mātauranga Pūtaiao?
What if students don't come up with cultural y responsive
Official
answers?
Q.35 The Mode of Assessment (internal/external) suggested for this achievement standard is appropriate for the standard.
the
Almost every comment in this section is concerned
about this being external – great concern voiced.
Does external in this case mean an externally funded NZQA
.
appointed team marking - Because it should! If it does,
Any report is basically an internal marked by someone external is good.
else - should be some opportunity for completely
Requires high literacy!
under
unbiased, examination type conditions of assessment
In one external standard (1.4) kids can choose different
contexts. Markers may therefore mark 1000 different
papers with different contexts
a marker having to switch contexts every single paper,
makes this a very demanding task.
Q.36 Please provide some suggestions that might be useful for the SEG and NZQA in further developing external assessment activities for this standard
Released
19
This is a fantastic standard and will be an
What would a task based on, waiata, mōteatea, pūrākau,
invaluable skill for learners. My only
or whakatauki end up looking like? Cultures all over the
confusion is whether students assess given
There is room for science skil s it just shouldn’t be the world have myths etc, but these were never intended to
science communication artefacts, or source whole course.
convey accurate information. Could you make an example
them themselves.
including these (outside of something that just references
Act
kaitiatiganga.
Great to see this included as a standard.
students will get bored doing this standard.
This will not work with my less able learners.
assumes that critical thinking and reviewing evidence are
generic skil s. The best piece of knowledge to interpret,
critique and evaluate scientific claims is science content
My only confusion is whether students assess given
and conceptual knowledge. students must rely on their
science communication artefacts, or source them
specific, content-based knowledge of the discipline in
themselves.
question to be able to determine fact from fiction. This
Information
means that if we are to stick with this standard, then its
focus must be shifted to ensure that it is assessed in such a
Rationale says that the standard addresses equity by
way that allows for students to use, in-depth, the
"not privileging recall skills or written literacy" but you curriculum level 6 content to critique science
have a requirement for an 800 word report is the
communications.
opposite of this as it requires kids to pull so many
Official
strands of ideas together and come to a consensus.
It is concerning that this standard is worth 6 credits
yet it does not feel accessible lower level.
the
This one is better (by far) than the S1.3… It could
survive and be incorporated into a Yr 11 “science”
course if the school chooses to include it. But there
are issues:
… it is assumed that examples are drip-fed to students
under
throughout the year and every now and then students
work on one themselves to build up a portfolio of 3, to
eventual y be submitted at some time late in the year.
This would require a bank of “decent” examples to be
agreed on for all NZ schools in the TLAG. The danger
of 1 school using an antivax (or other) example and
detailing how that can be critiqued, while another
school al ows students to use that exact resource in
Released
20
their portfolio is just one example of how hard
authenticity issues would be to deal with.
…
Q.37 These products provide the opportunity for al learners to see their language, culture and identity in their learning and assessment in Level 1 Science.
Act
This is something that all teachers should be there is an opportunity BUT most teachers don't have
(Overal , the comments resoundingly answer, “No, – not
embracing in class anyway!
the skills to actually incorporate this effectively
al learners can see themselves.”)
Explicitly saying that mātauranga and science ought not to
By being flexible we can cater to the
be compared and contrasted is misguided. Students ought
different learning views and needs easier. I
to be able to interrogate each system and provide
like how this view is now an accepted form
coherent responses when asked about which kinds of
of the Science area.
question each knowledge system is able to answer and in
which circumstances its answers have authority.
As a person who identifies as Maori I find the
application of Mātauranga Pūtaiao as forced and
Information
It has made significant improvement on
outside what science is. Mātauranga Pūtaiao is a
valuing mātauranga Pūtaiao
knowledge system that does exist, thought, it is not
Very hard to tell this without learning programmes!!
science. It should have its own standards that can be
assessed
We do have to mindful some aspects within every culture
Official
(including western ones) are lacking proof. Without
I like that we are planning for those that don't take
dismissing the culture as a whole, we still need to be able
science in the future and helping them develop skil s
recognise what is supported by evidence and what is not. I
of a good scientist, however are
the we catering for those think these standards need advice on how we deal with
that do go on in science fields.
this.
For example: the maramataka could be a good context for
Opportunity!
1.4. However, there is no rigorous evidence that supports
planting according to the cycles of the moon. Similarly
under
there is no evidence regarding moon phases affecting
Where there are conflicts (e.g. literal Bible
human behaviour. If this was used as a context would we
interpretation) this needs to be handled sensitively. I al ow students to come to the conclusion that these claims
don't think that the school science lab is the place to
lack credibility? How could the support of these ideas not
hammer this out and I don't feel that I have the skil s
enforce observer bias and the placebo effect (e.g. anti-vax,
to help a student who has conflicts.
homeopathy, "miracle" medicines etc)? I don't know the
answers to these questions.
I think the SEG has done excellent work at
Released
achieving this aim - it's bold, it's exciting.
All???
concern that the 'requirement' may lead to patronising
inclusion of material
21
…we probably do not give sufficient focus in
our current curriculum for the 50% who do
The mātauranga Pūtaiao content knowledge should be
not go on to further science. And I
explicitly taught and assessed and kept separate from
commend the writers for clearly trying to
Western Science.
address this.
Act
This is real y dependent on the teacher and their teaching,
not the task or standard.
Information
Official
the
under
Released
22
