The research questions explained

4.2.1 RQ 1 What was the origin of the SNC and how did it develop over time? This question seeks to understand why the NC and, specifically the SNC, came into being and how it evolved over time. The school curriculum had developed in an organic way since the start of state provision of schooling (Jenkins, 2019) and, prior to that, various science curriculums were developed by various private (independent) schools (Brock, 1977). Once the state mandated that children must attend school, e.g. as a result

of the 1870 Forster act (Forster, 1870), schools had to provide a curriculum. The first formal curriculum, listing subjects to be taught, was introduced in 1904 (Lowe, 1984) but the specific content of the curriculum was decided by the exam board syllabuses and individual schools/teachers.

This question explores the origin of the NC, how it came to be in place and how it evolved over time. To answer this question various documents including HMI reports, government commissioned reports on the state of the school curriculum as well as the acts of parliament that laid the foundations for and the legislation required to bring a NC into force will be examined and analysed. The SNC documents that were proposed and in force will then be used to look at how the curriculum for science, and in particular a key aspect of the curriculum, the NoS, evolved over time. There are various ways in which such a curriculum could develop. For example, a slow gradual process where curriculum content changes, or changes to structure, would be minor and over time move away from the initial structure/content, or in a more dramatic way, where major changes could be effected in a short timescale, while keeping the main structures intact or, at the other extreme in a stochastic way.

4.2.2 RQ 2 What were the political, educational and organisational influences on its origin and development?

Following on from RQ 1, this question further examines the political, educational and organisational influences on the origin and development of the SNC. The reports education acts and documents examined in RQ 1 will be set alongside the accounts of the politicians responsible (extracted from their autobiographies and biographies) for enacting the NC, to ascertain the political motivations for a NC and a SNC. The main aim of this question is to understand the key drivers for the introduction of a NC. Was this purely for educational purposes, only to deliver to children a rounded broad based education, with no other purpose than self-development and the development of intellectual (and scientific) curiosity? Or, were there other drivers, such as the need to hold schools and teachers to account, or to ensure a plentiful supply of suitably educated people to meet the demands of our economic and industrial plans and ensure the UK’s place as a world leading industrial and economic force. The question also addresses the issues of organisation within schools, e.g. is the development of separate curriculum content practical? Within science the curriculum started as a series of ‘big ideas’ in science. It was quickly reduced back to the original notional three sciences of biology, chemistry and physics, yet there was a squeezing of five separate disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, geology and astronomy) into three subjects. This will be examined

by looking at how the curriculum content was changed and re-arranged in the various versions of the curriculum over time.

4.2.3 RQs 3 – 6 The place of the NoS in the curriculum

The remaining research questions specifically address the place of the NoS within the curriculum. RQ 3 determines what the NoS is according to the various SNC documents and compares this with a general conception of the NoS.

RQ4 looks at the problem of coherence in the curriculum – how the NoS could address coherence and whether or not the various versions of the curriculum support coherence or undermine coherence. There is an assumption that ‘science’ is just science. While it is recognised that there are different disciplines of science (as stated above), these may not necessarily operate in the same way. For example, how a physicist investigates forces and the methods a theoretical physicist uses to determine say the nature of gravity, will not be the same approach as taken by a biologist who is seeking to develop a theory about how life developed and diversified. Does our curriculum enable learners in science to understand the various approaches and methods scientists use to determine answers to their questions? To answer this question, the SNC versions will be analysed along with interviews of science teachers who were taught science as children when the SNC was in force and who have since gone on to train in science (through gaining science degrees and for some, working as professional scientists).

RQ 5 looks at how the NoS has been changed/affected during the various revisions of the SNC and examines its placement (e.g. as a full AT or as part of the PoS).

Finally, RQ 6 again utilises the results of the semi-structured interviews in order to ascertain whether having the NoS as part of the SNC leads to a better understanding of the NoS. This is a difficult question to answer from document analysis. The fact that there are only a few teachers interviewed means that the results will be impressionistic only. It may well be the case that other influences (e.g., whether or not they studied any history and philosophy of science etc. as part of their science degree) complicate the outcome. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see if the small sample interviewed have differences or gaps in their understanding of the NoS, similar to those found in previous research with pre-service and serving teachers (Irez, 2006; Aslan and Tasar, 2013; Ozgelen et

4.2.4 The meaning of ‘political’, ‘organisational’ and educational’ within this case study

This case study examines the political, organisational and educational influences on the development of the NC and, in particular, the SNC. How these terms are defined and used is explained briefly below.

Political influence: Politicians have influence over many aspects of our lives and over society in general. This is no different in education. Politicians will have ideological stances (e.g. for or against private education, selection etc.) as well as political objectives, such as holding schools/teachers to account. This case study examines what political influences there were on the setting up and introduction of the NC and SNC, in part through the biographies and autobiographies of those politicians involved in setting up and enacting the SNC.

Organisational influence: A centrally defined curriculum will pose organisational opportunities and problems for schools and teachers. In this case study, how the curriculum influenced how science was taught (e.g. as discrete disciplines/subjects or as ‘big idea’ concepts and topics) will depend on how schools organised the delivery in the timetable and how the teachers were allocated (e.g. as teachers of separate sciences or as multidisciplinary teachers delivering two or three sciences to their classes). While this case study will not look at the timetables of schools, the teacher interviews will look at how it was taught by asking questions around memories of science in primary and secondary school.

Educational influence: The case study traces the educational influence over the science curriculum from its earliest days through the nineteenth century as well as how universities specified the content of science required for public examinations for entry to higher education. Within this, we also encounter the ideas of science literacy and scientific literacy and the role of the NoS in determining if a curriculum leads to the former or the latter. There is also an account of how the teaching of science was influenced by key curriculum initiatives, such as Nuffield Science or SATIS (SATIS, 1986; Anon, 2018b).