Home

The Office of the Board of Studies NSW Archives

Limited Evaluation Report

Executive Summary

The limited evaluation of the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus and Support Document involved in-depth interviews with teaching staff in thirty eight primary schools throughout New South Wales. These interviews were based around a set of open-ended discussion items focussing on the following areas:

perceived areas of strength and weakness of the document
the six content strands (Built Environments, Information and Communication, Living Things, Physical Phenomena, Products and Services, The Earth and Its Surroundings )
the three learning processes (Investigating, Designing and Making, Using Technology)
the syllabus outcomes
the status of Science and Technology in each school
additional support required

The interviews were conducted by panels of 2-5 people comprising members of the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus Advisory Committee, Board Officers, and system consultants and representatives. A total of 555 teachers, 38 principals and 24 panel members participated in the consultation. The Board of Studies would like to thank the NSW schools that participated.

The evaluation provided a snapshot of the views of primary teachers. The findings from this evaluation are as follows:

There appears to be measured acceptance of the Science and Technology K-6 document by the majority of teachers.
The syllabus (the first 31 pages of the document) is not used or referred to by teachers to the same degree as the support document.
The support document is used for programming and planning - not the syllabus.
The Technology component of the Science and Technology key learning area is not fully understood by teachers at this time.
Curriculum integration with content from English and/or Human Society and Its Environment is very common.
Time allocations to Science and Technology in class programs range from 60 to 120 minutes per week with the majority tending towards the lower range.
Science and Technology is considered by the majority of teachers to have "mid-range" status in their school curriculum.
Supply, storage and maintenance of consumable goods (batteries, corks etc) is considered a barrier to the full implementation of the syllabus.
Four major factors appear to determine the selection of units and the extent of Science and Technology teaching in a school:
1. teacher understanding and confidence,
2. student interest,
3. the availability of resources, and
4. content being taught in other key learning areas.
Class programs tend to favour content that is seen as relating to natural science and physical science (the Living Things, Physical Phenomena and The Earth and Its Surroundings strands/units).
Less emphasis appears to be given to content that is seen as relating to technology (the Products and Services and Information and Communication strands/units).
The three learning processes are viewed as separate and distinct areas with priority given to Investigating.
Designing and Making is a valued process, however understandings in this area are yet to be developed .
The Using Technology learning process receives less emphasis in classrooms.
The syllabus outcomes are considered too numerous, too broad, and vague.
Selective use is made of the outcomes for planning.
The outcomes are generally not used for assessment or reporting.
Schools in lower socio-economic areas (with a high number of students from non-English speaking backgrounds) are required to provide additional time and learning opportunities for their students to access the content in the units of work.
Teachers require support in the following areas:
1. accessing supplies of consumable resource materials
2. curriculum integration units (with English and Human Society and Its Environment)
3. background information on science and technology concepts
4. student activities on CD Rom, video topic starters as an added stimulus
Teachers recognise the need for ongoing professional development in the area of Science and Technology.

Introduction

This report presents the findings and conclusions from the 1996 limited evaluation of the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus and Support Document(1991). The findings from the evaluation are based on consultation with teachers that commenced in Wagga Wagga on Tuesday September 10 and ended in Pymble on November 14.

The consultation process involved interviews with teaching staff in thirty eight primary schools throughout New South Wales. These interviews were conducted by panels of 2-5 people comprising members of the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus Advisory Committee, Board Officers, and system consultants and representatives.

A total of 555 teachers, 38 principals and 24 panel members participated in the consultation. The approach taken to evaluate this syllabus was new. It involved in-depth interviews at school sites with whole staff participation. These interviews were based around a set of open-ended discussion items focussing on:

perceived areas of strength and weakness of the document
the six content strands (Built Environments, Information and Communication, Living Things, Physical Phenomena, Products and Services, The Earth and Its Surroundings )
the three learning processes (Investigating, Designing and Making, Using Technology)
the syllabus outcomes
the status of Science and Technology in each school
additional support required

Feedback from the participating schools and panel members indicates that the approach to evaluating the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus and Support Document was a highly successful and rewarding activity for all involved. The project was completed on time and within budget.

Background to the document

Prior to the release of the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus and Support Documentin 1991, there was no direct equivalent in the NSW curriculum or the curriculum of any western nation. At that stage there was also no distinct notion of Technology as a curriculum component in either the K-6 or 7-12 curriculum. The Science curriculum for government primary schools during the 1980s comprised the Investigating Science K-6 Policy (1980) and general policies in computer education and mass media education. The development of the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus and Support Document was shaped by several factors.

First was widespread concern that the primary curriculum was overcrowded and needed some rationalisation and coordination.

Second was the formal Departmental evaluation of the Investigating Science K-6 Policy (1980)in 1988-89. An extensive survey was carried out, using a stratified sample of over 430 schools (25% of all government primary and central schools). Data were collected from teachers, principals, Year 6 students and school inspectors. It was found that less than 10% of teachers had formally implemented the policy, although a higher proportion were implementing an inquiry-based approach arising from the complementary Investigating Social Studies K-6 Policy. There was widespread support in principle for science in the K-6 curriculum, and for its learner-centred and investigative approach.

Third, the notion of technology in the K-6 curriculum emerged. There were several views on how technology should be incorporated into the primary curriculum at the time. Most of these centred on the development of separate syllabuses for science, design, and computer education. There was also a view that the social consequences of technology should be covered in a revised social studies syllabus. These views were rejected in favour of presenting a comprehensive view of technology education within the one document, even though elements of technology apply across the curriculum. This strategy also helped reduce, rather than increase, the number of K-6 curriculum documents.

The Department of School Education commenced the development of a draft Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus and Support Document in 1989. Responsibility for the revision of the draft then moved from the Department of School Education to the Board of Studies in 1990 following the establishment of the Board as the state curriculum authority for Years K-12.

Background to the Evaluation

The Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus and Support Document was released to schools in 1991.

The Board had originally set 1995 as the year to undertake a limited evaluation of the document. However, this did not take place owing to the review of outcomes and profiles undertaken by the Eltis Committee during that year. In planning its 1996 primary curriculum development schedule the Board agreed that a limited evaluation of the syllabus should take place in 1996 followed by a full evaluation of the syllabus in 1998.

At its meeting on February 20, 1996, the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus Advisory Committee raised and discussed issues surrounding the limited evaluation. The Committee proposed that the evaluation be undertaken using semi-structured group interviews in approximately 40 schools. The Committee's report to the Board included the following recommendations for the Board's consideration:

That the evaluation should be based on discussion with teachers in a range of schools.
That schools should be selected randomly but a coverage of government and non-government schools, schools of various sizes, K-12 schools, inner city schools, outer suburban schools and country schools be ensured.
That the sample of teachers be representative of the views of the full range of K-6 teachers. It should not be limited to those teachers who regard themselves as Science and Technology `specialists'.
That the meetings take place at a time convenient to the school and that each meeting be scheduled for a period of approximately one hour.
That the interview panels include officers of the Board, the Department of School Education, the Catholic Education Commission, the Association of Independent Schools, and members of the Science and Technology Syllabus Advisory Committee.

The Committee's proposal and recommendations were subsequently endorsed by the Board at its August 1996 meeting.

Data collection and handling

The thirty eight primary schools were selected from a stratified sample across New South Wales. The qualitative method employed for this evaluation was semi-structured group interviews. The discussion questions were made sufficiently open to enable a focus on issues identified by the teachers during the interview. All aspects of the methodology contained a number of features which protected the teachers and schools by incorporating confidentiality, anonymity and informed consent.

The panel members met for a full day briefing on the interview procedures and protocol. Schools were sent the discussion agenda and background information on the evaluation prior to their interview. A teleconference was held for panel members on October 24. The major purpose for the teleconference was to provide an opportunity for panel members to discuss the interview process following the completion of an initial set of interviews (11 schools).

Interview reports were forwarded to the project manager by panel members. These reports, which were co-signed by the panel members, were based on notes taken during the interview with the main discussion points being confirmed with the participating teachers at the completion of the interview. A group of four panel members involved in the interviews met over two days to analyse the interview reports.

Due to the use of open-ended questions, the data were postcoded[1]. This was undertaken by identifying patterns in the interview reports, and developing categories so that the data could be dealt with in themes. A coding frame was then developed for each theme to determine the range of responses across the thirty eight schools.

Following the development of the framework for analysis the thirty eight interview reports were coded then scored to arrive at key findings from the evaluation. Contextual considerations were also applied to the process to identify common findings across schools with similar characteristics (eg schools with high NESB populations, schools in isolated settings, small schools etc).

Findings of the Evaluation

The findings of the evaluation are presented in four parts:

General Findings
Response to the Interview Questions
Additional Findings (findings based on matters and issues raised by the participants), and
Emerging Issues (matters pertaining to the Board's future planning).

These findings have been arrived at after detailed analysis of the thirty eight interview reports and consultation with the panel members.

7.3 Additional Findings

The syllabus encourages the use of everyday materials for use in K-6 Science and Technology learning experiences. However, the supply, storage and maintenance of everyday consumable materials such as batteries, corks, wire, bottle tops etc appears to be a major concern for schools and teachers. Many find the process of collecting or locating bulk suppliers (where considered necessary) as consuming valuable time and energy. It is considered a constant that frustrates teachers and acts as a barrier to the full implementation of the syllabus. A number of teachers stated that their enthusiasm for the syllabus, which was high in the first years of its implementation, had now diminished due to this very reason.

Some schools had addressed issues of supply, storage and maintenance through the annual appointment of a teacher as the "co-ordinator" of resources for the key learning area. These "co-ordinators" receive Science and Technology mail, organise kits and resources, and in a few cases maintain a room, corner or cupboard designated as the Science and Technology space in the school.

In one school teachers spoke enthusiastically of the role played by students and parents in maintaining the supply of materials in Science and Technology. They saw this role as being directly linked to the high interest and engagement students had in Science and Technology learning experiences in the school. Many suggested that schools would value the provision of information about current suppliers of consumable materials for Science and Technology, possibly accessed electronically such as via the Internet.

7.3.1 Supply, storage and maintenance of materials

7.3.2 Teachers' Understandings and Confidence

There is clear evidence that teacher understanding and confidence are significant factors influencing the selection of content and learning experiences in class programs. Though the syllabus does not assume specialist understanding of science and technology, teachers expressed a desire for at least some general understanding of Science and Technology concepts.

Some schools have attempted to address this issue through the use of individual teachers as identified "specialists". In some schools these teachers take classes for Science and Technology as the designated Relief From Face To Face program (or a component of the program) in the school. It was noted, however, that where such arrangements exist it is viewed as a necessary or convenient arrangement, one that does not address the issue of teacher understanding at a whole school level.

There is some evidence to suggest that a number of teachers would prefer more structured, predictable Science and Technology investigations. Some teachers have acquired commercially produced materials that provide guidance in this regard while some others have been quite selective in their choice of learning experiences in the units of work.

7.3.3 Curriculum Integration

Many teachers stated their preference for the integration of Science and Technology content with other key learning areas, notably English, Human Society and Its Environment, and to a lesser extent, Personal Development, Health and Physical Education.

Approaches appear to differ within and between schools, ranging from the use of Science and Technology contexts as the vehicle for teaching about text types in the English K-6 key learning area (such as recounts and information reports) to the use of selected literary texts that deal with Science and Technology topics. Some teachers described how they select a broad topic as a curriculum umbrella for a few key learning areas enabling them to integrate Science and Technology units or selected learning experiences from units.

7.3.4 Student literacy and prior learning experiences

There was a common concern amongst schools in low socio-economic areas (with a significant number of students from non-English speaking backgrounds) regarding student literacy and prior learning experiences. Teachers in these schools commented on the need to provide opportunities and time for students to acquire knowledge, skills and understandings that were necessary to access the content in the units of work.

Some of these teachers indicated that they were not able to program from the staged units because the activities assumed literacy levels and student understandings that had not been reached by their students.

It must be stated, however, that teachers in these schools saw Science and Technology subject matter and learning experiences as appropriate for developing literacy skills. The Designing and Making process, for example was seen as a highly valuable context for developing and observing students' knowledge, skills and understandings in English.

7.3.5 Ongoing professional development

Several teachers expressed concern with the inevitable shift in key learning area focus that occurs when a new syllabus is introduced in primary schools, citing the introduction of English K-6 in 1994 as having a major impact on the reduced emphasis that Science and Technology now receives.

A number of teachers emphasised the need for ongoing professional development to support the implementation of the syllabus. A few schools stated that Science and Technology had been included in their professional development plans in 1996.

Primestep, a professional development program that commenced in 1992, was generally well regarded by most of the teachers that attended the course.

7.4 Emerging Issues

Apart from the specific issues raised by teachers during the school visits, there are two significant issues that require consideration in light of the broader primary curriculum development agenda.

Given the current schedule for curriculum development, proposals in the Science and Technology key learning area will be understandably low in comparison to priorities in the K-6 syllabus development agenda. The following emerging issues, nonetheless, require consideration as part of the Board's long term view of primary curriculum development, particularly in relation to the place and status of the Science and Technology key learning area within the total primary curriculum.

7.4.1 Minimum time

The Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus and Support Document was released to schools in 1991. As indicated by teachers during the evaluation, the key learning area is considered to have mid-range status in relation to other key learning areas with estimated time allocations ranging from one to two hours per week.

Outcomes for Mathematics K-6 and syllabuses for English K-6, Human Society and Its Environment K-6, Creative Arts K-6 and PD/Health/PE K-6 are listed for release over the next few years. Given this schedule, it is reasonable to expect that the time that Science and Technology now enjoys within the total curriculum may diminish over the next few years as syllabuses are released in the other key learning areas.

Consideration needs to be given, therefore, to whether it may be necessary to advise schools on the recommended minimum amount of time that is required for students to have sufficient access to the content of the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus. There are indications that schools would appreciate such advice.

7.4.2 Outcomes and Work Samples

The stage outcomes in the syllabus do not appear to provide teachers or schools with a clear and concise description of student achievement in Science and Technology.

Though the outcomes in the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus received little attention during the implementation of the syllabus, as schools move to assessment and reporting using stage outcomes in other key learning areas it is reasonable to anticipate that these schools may wish to give greater attention to the outcomes in existing syllabuses. It may be necessary, therefore, to clarify the status of the [stage] outcomes in the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus in relation to stage outcomes based on the Board's new model.

The collection of work samples will soon be a feature of curriculum development in the other five key learning areas of the primary curriculum. These work samples will be used with syllabus outcomes to exemplify standards of achievement by illustrating what students know and can do.

It may be useful to consider collecting work samples in the Science and Technology key learning area prior to the full evaluation of the syllabus in 1998. These work samples could then be used as a resource during the full evaluation of the syllabus in 1998.

Conclusions

The limited evaluation of the Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus and Support Document provided a snapshot of the views of primary teachers.

The findings from this evaluation were:

There appears to be measured acceptance of the Science and Technology K-6 document by the majority of teachers.
The syllabus (the first 31 pages of the document) is not used or referred to by teachers to the same degree as the support document.
The support document is used for programming and planning - not the syllabus.
The Technology component of the Science and Technology key learning area is not fully understood by teachers at this time.
Curriculum integration with content from English and/or Human Society and Its Environment is very common.
Time allocations to Science and Technology in class programs range from 60 to 120 minutes per week with the majority tending towards the lower range.
Science and Technology is considered by the majority of teachers to have "mid-range" status in their school curriculum.
Supply, storage and maintenance of consumable goods (batteries, corks etc) is considered a barrier to the full implementation of the syllabus.
Four major factors appear to determine the selection of units and the extent of Science and Technology teaching in a school:
1. teacher understanding and confidence,
2. student interest,
3. the availability of resources, and
4. content being taught in other key learning areas.
Class programs tend to favour content that is seen as relating to natural science and physical science (the Living Things, Physical Phenomena and The Earth and Its Surroundings strands/units).
Less emphasis appears to be given to content that is seen as relating to technology (the Products and Services and Information and Communication strands/units).
The three learning processes are viewed as separate and distinct areas with priority given to Investigating.
Designing and Making is a valued process, however understandings in this area are yet to be developed .
The Using Technology learning process receives less emphasis in classrooms.
The syllabus outcomes are considered too numerous, too broad, and vague.
Selective use is made of the outcomes for planning.
The outcomes are generally not used for assessment or reporting.
Schools in lower socio-economic areas (with a high number of students from non-English speaking backgrounds) are required to provide additional time and learning opportunities for their students to access the content in the units of work.
Teachers require support in the following areas:
1. accessing supplies of consumable resource materials
2. curriculum integration units (with English and Human Society and Its Environment)
3. background information on science and technology concepts
4. student activities on CD-Rom, video topic starters as an added stimulus
Teachers recognise the need for ongoing professional development in the area of Science and Technology.

[1] Interview data can be either precoded or postcoded. Precoding involves scoring of responses into pre-determined categories. This generally occurs during the interview process. Postcoding of data involves the identification of categories following the collection of data (Cohen and Manion, Research Methods In Education, 1995). This latter approach was employed in this evaluation because it ensured that the issues for analysis were those identified by the participants.

Educational Resources

Board of Studies NSW