The New Zealand draft science curriculum released last month promises to promote “knowledge-rich learning”.
The term is only vaguely defined, and the curriculum does not appreciate the importance to teach students critical thinking when it comes to science.
In the last few decades, research and practice have shown that a knowledge-rich curriculum includes multiple dimensions. They include content knowledge (facts, concepts) procedural knowledge(how to do science), and epistemic (understanding of the nature and origins of scientific knowledge).
To be able to think critically, make informed decisions and have functional scientific literacy, you need procedural and epistemic knowledge. New Zealand’s curriculum draft is heavy on facts, but it does not include other important knowledge domains.
The current research into scientific literacy shows that deep knowledge also includes an awareness of the ethical and relational aspects of science. These are not included in the present draft.
This omission, we argue, risks failing both students and society. does not teach critical thinking — a skill necessary to tackle major global challenges like climate change and pandemics.
The draft curriculum does not provide any insight into the decisions made regarding what is considered “core knowledge”, and which ideas get prioritised. It is not clear whose perspective determines what constitutes essential knowledge.
Science teachers are concerned about the mismatch in content requirements and student readiness, as reflected by the feedback compiled recently by professional teacher associations such as Earth and Space Science Educators of New Zealand and New Zealand Association of Science Educators.
Hormone regulation, for example, is now taught in Year 10 despite being currently taught at Year 13. The three-year shift ignores the fact that Year 10 students may not have the foundational knowledge and cognitive maturity to understand such complex physiological processes.
The separation of foundational concepts (such as the atomic theory and periodic table) is a mistake. lack of a vertical learning progression means that teachers are left without a clear path for building student understanding across years.
Science and its nature
The draft’s treatment of “nature of Science”, or how scientific knowledge is produced, validated and influenced by social, epistemic and relational dimensions is the most disturbing.
The draft states that this is “embedded”, but the approach actually eliminates nature of science from the curriculum as an explicit and distinct focus.
Science is not just about knowledge and practices. It also includes social norms, institutions, and values, which influence how knowledge is created, evaluated, and accepted. is internationally recognized as essential in science education.
Students should understand that science is an endeavour that involves human beings and practices that produce reliable knowledge, such as peer-review, systematic observation, and openness to the latest evidence. It also has troubling legacy, including its complicity with colonisation, racism, and ableism.
The draft is also characterized by a misinterpretation on scientific practice. In the last decade, the community of science educators has accepted epistemic practices, which is that students are required to engage in practices for building, evaluating, criticizing and refining scientific knowledge.
Researchers have documented a crisis in misinformation that affects both the public’s understanding of science as well as scientific investigation. Scholars in science education argue that curricula that do not develop students’ critical evaluation and epistemic skills are missing a vital opportunity for learners to navigate contested claims of knowledge.
Many of the elements described in the draft are actually activities or rote procedures. Students may acquire technical skills, but not the critical faculties needed to assess the validity and trustworthiness of scientific claims.
In a society at risk, science education is essential.
Ulrich Beck, a sociologist, called our society a ” Risk Society“. The world is facing daunting challenges that require scientific understanding, and critical engagement in its social context.
Science curriculum frameworks around the world are starting to acknowledge this. Singapore’s 2023 Primary and Secondary curriculum introduced ethics, values and attitudes in the science. The recent reforms encourage students to consider the positive and negative effects of scientific applications, and to express their ethical position.
The draft New Zealand science curriculum does not provide a framework for such engagement. Te Mataiaho was the overarching framework that encompassed all of these values. It was meant to be integrated into every learning area, including science. has since been stripped from its original purpose.
New Zealand’s draft, ironically, reduces the content of Earth science and environmental science dramatically, while international organizations are highlighting that Earth sciences and environmental sciences need to be strengthened .
The science curriculum is almost completely devoid of topics on earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tectonic plate movements – all essential to understand New Zealand’s unique geography. is moved to the Year 8 social science.
Climate change is underrepresented as well, with only Year 9 and 10 being covered. The draft contains just two references on Indigenous knowledge.
Research shows that the students’ perception of science as “for me” has a profound impact on their engagement and future paths.
Students do not recognise themselves in a curriculum that reduces science to facts decontextualised. Everybody loses out on the chance to relate science to their lives, communities and personal questions.
New Zealand can be a leader in science education by fully implementing the vision articulated within the OECD 2025 Programme for International Student Evaluation , which places emphasis on developing science citizenship abilities. This draft is a step backward.
The article was written with the help of New Zealand science educators, Madeleine Collins and Rachel Chisnall, as well as Faye Booker. We are grateful for their professional insight and informed perspective.
Sara Tolbert has received funding through NZCER’s TLRI program. She was a subject matter expert in science and a member of the New Zealand Ministry of Education’s Science Advisory Group from 2022-2024.
Ben Kennedy has received funding for research in science education from the MBIE Endeavour Fund.
