Imagine asking a five year old to name basic body parts. That kid’s known an eye from an elbow since the age of two.

This is the clearest indication we have that NSW syllabus writers have it so wrong. Some of the science knowledge is too simple, other ideas are too hard. Worst of all, it could lead to a return to regurgitating facts.

Why don’t syllabus writers take advice from education researchers? This question applies to both the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA). 

Advice largely ignored

Twice in the last two years a group of science education researchers from multiple NSW universities gave extensive, research-informed advice on primary science syllabus drafts. That advice was largely ignored. 

Problems which exist in the new NSW Science and Technology K-6 syllabus released last week could have been avoided. The consultation process is flawed when the people whose job it is to keep up with research about learning and teaching in science (and technology) are brushed aside. We need to create a school curriculum fit for contemporary students that gets the balance of intrigue and difficulty right. The views of primary teachers who usually lack strong knowledge in science must be balanced by research insights from science educators. NSW now has a syllabus like a leaky bucket, full of holes that science educators now must help teachers fix.

In developing the previous, 2017, syllabus, three science educators – Anne Forbes from Macquarie University, Helen Georgiou from Wollongong University and myself – spent a day with the syllabus writers advising on knowledge content. This collaboration resulted in a higher quality syllabus with accurate science ideas that were sequenced to match student ages.  

NESA claims: that “For the first time the K-6 curriculum is being developed cohesively to support depth of learning and enhance student engagement.” The science and technology section falls short of this aim.

Facts vs Inquiry

When you download the Science and Technology K-6 syllabus from the NSEA website, it reads like a list of facts to be remembered. I worry the lists of facts followed by specific examples will mean more rote learning and less engaging practical work for children. 

Inquiry is an essential science practice. Eminent science education scholar Roger Bybee (UK) argued over a decade ago “Inquiry is central to science . . . it should be basic in the design of school science programs, selection of instructional materials and implementation of teaching strategies”. Critically the word inquiry is not found in the Science and Technology K-6. Syllabus. Distinguished Alfred Deakin Professor of Science Education Russell Tytler agrees that in this time of wicked problems like climate change and advancing technologies we must build a generation of thinkers capable of advanced problem solving.

Kindergarten is too easy, other years’ content is too hard

Some topics do not suit students of different ages, despite advice from experts at four universities. Kindergarten ideas are too easy – naming basic human body parts is pre-school level. That means young learners will be bored and not engaged. 

Why does that matter? In kindergarten, children’s initial views about science and technology form. Their self‐perceptions as learners of science and technology matter and potentially impact future STEM‐related pursuits. I argue that the first year of school is the ideal time to engage children in practical inquiry. It’s also the ideal time to inspire a love of learning in science. School science learning should be stimulating from the start. Insufficient focus on basic physics misses the opportunity for children to explore how toys work.

In later years knowledge does not match students’ learning capabilities. Aligning knowledge with age-level is vital for successful learning. Some topics are slated for vastly different year levels than the Australian Curriculum, whilst content and examples are more suited to – and already taught in – high school. Examples include:

The topic of Light is Year 5 level in the national curriculum, but is to be taught in years one to two in NSW – Why? That light can be reflected and refracted is better suited to late primary (years five to six). Extra ideas of light dispersion and absorption would be misplaced in late primary, let alone years one and two.  

It gets worse

It gets worse, the more abstract ideas have been added to topics, which will hinder deep learning. Despite aims to ‘declutter’ the primary syllabus, more knowledge has been taken from secondary level. Take, for example, the transfer of heat energy taught in years three to four. It was previously limited to conduction (contact) but now includes ‘convection and radiation’. These processes cannot be observed directly which makes it difficult to understand them. The expectation that students will be able to ‘compare how different materials absorb or reflect heat energy’ is unrealistic for primary level.   

Example content includes ideas that students cannot observe directly, which makes it difficult to learn in primary school. Complex ideas in years three to four include ‘force of gravity keeps Earth, moons and planets in their positions in the solar system’ and years five to six ‘coordination of human body systems’. Both are high school level in the national curriculum. 

Writing is privileged over multimodal communication

Writing alone is not a good way to learn science and technology ideas. Australian research shows that learning and thinking is advanced when children use many ways to communicate. Teachers should encourage children to draw, talk, move their bodies, use gestures, make models as well as writing to support science and technology learning. Research led by Deakin University colleagues Russell Tytler, Vaughan Prain and Peter Hubber and my own study (with Peter) show when students create multi-modal representations they engage with and learn ideas deeper. The approach also helps students see how scientists generate knowledge and motivates their learning in science and technology.

It is not too late

We cannot afford to rely on a syllabus that looks like a litany of everything that we had last century – Human biology, reduced physics in the early years and jumbled facts for memorisation and recall. Hopefully the web-based syllabus will allow NESA to review the content lists and examples. The compound outcomes, that don’t make sense, can be made more achievable by getting the content and examples at the right level for students.The opportunity exists with the help of science educators to fix the problems outlined here before the syllabus is implemented in primary schools in 2027. 

Christine Preston is an associate professor in science education in the School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has taught science in primary and secondary school and her research interests include science for 5-year-olds, embodied learning in maths and science, citizen science, teacher quality.