Daily life examples: An excuse for failing to engage in effective curriculum development in science

This paper argues that our present approach to science curriculum development in Hong Kong is likely to prove disastrous. Many curriculum developers have shown that with which they are familiar and will pay only lip-service instead of generating real change. In the present situation in Hong Kong we have chosen to retain the existing syllabus, but to write a “guide” promoting changes in implementation. This is the second such event predicating continuing anachronistic science teaching here, the first being the fusing of science, health & social studies syllabi, in the name of “integration,” in the primary curriculum. Both are retrograde in the face of real progress in recent revisions of the Chemistry CE, Biology AS level and A-level practical. Using examples taken from other systems, the failure to implement change when only new methods are advocated, e.g. to use “more daily life examples to teach science,” is contrasted with success of implementation when syllabus, teachers and text-books are all changed in a radical, co-ordinated way. Science-related personal & social education, integration of science with design & technology and information technology, and a fundamental re-examination of science as process, rather than science as a “body of knowledge” in syllabus design will be used to exemplify such successes. Participants will be encouraged to follow an independent approach in radical school-based syllabus revisions, and to reject the CDI initiative in favour of their own in a subject where no Territorially agreed content is significant beyond a list of topic areas to be covered. Furthermore the Education Department text-book committee whilst ensuring a severely process-based adherence to methods of teaching & learning science as new books and produced. Copyright © 1996 University of Hong Kong.