exploiting curriculum commonality in small island states: some strategies for primary science...

NEIL TAYLOR, BAREND VLAARDINGERBROEK and RICHARD K. COLL

EXPLOITING CURRICULUM COMMONALITY IN SMALL ISLANDSTATES: SOME STRATEGIES FOR PRIMARY SCIENCE

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC

ABSTRACT. Improving primary science education in the small, developing island nationsof the South Pacific is of increasing importance if these countries are to improve the qualityof life of their citizens and achieve sustainable economic growth. The education systemsin the South Pacific are commonly legacies of old colonial powers and are dominatedby external summative examinations that drive a teacher-dominated didactic pedagogy.Changing this situation is likely to be a long-term issue. However, in the short to mediumterm science education at the primary level would likely benefit from some strategiesthat are achievable, sustainable and relatively inexpensive when compared with many aid-funded projects. The authors propose a regional approach to curriculum development andthe employment of simple readers to deliver science concepts to students through literacyas a means of improving the current situation.

KEY WORDS: curriculum, primary science, science readers, South Pacific

The education needs of many small island states in the South Pacific regionare often addressed by aid-funded projects implemented by outside orga-nizations (Taufe’ulungaki, 1993). Such ‘aid’ projects – often of short dura-tion – involve experts coming to South Pacific nations and working with lo-cal people to implement some changes, be it to the education system, or tosome aspects of national educational infrastructure. These aid projects areultimately intended to help the island nations achieve higher standards ofliving by means of economic growth and sustainable development. How-ever, in the experience of the authors (all of whom have worked for sub-stantial periods of time in developing nations) many aid-funded projects,including education projects, are often extremely high cost, and tend todeteriorate rapidly when the donors leave (see, e.g., Cook & Taylor, 1995).

A major problem facing donors is the remote geography and smallpopulations of the South Pacific nations which make cost-effective aidprojects difficult to deliver (Taylor, 1994; Taylor & Topalian, 1995). Thisarticle presents two possible strategies for improving the cost-effectivenessof developing primary science in the region. The strategies suggested aimto exploit curriculum commonality between South Pacific nations in orderto provide a ‘critical mass’ in terms of good quality resource produc-tion. Such strategies may also offer greater sustainability because of thesignificant local ownership they offer.

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 1: 157–174, 2003.© 2004 National Science Council, Taiwan. Printed in the Netherlands.

158 NEIL TAYLOR ET AL.

THE CASE FOR INVESTING IN PRIMARY SCIENCE EDUCATION IN

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

In the view of many authors science education represents an importantdevelopment strategy for the economic and technological modernizationof developing nations (e.g., Benavot, 1992; Walberg, 1991). In particular,primary science education has the potential to improve the people’s livingconditions through addressing local problems with respect to such basicneeds as clean water, sound nutrition, and personal health (Lewin, 1993).Likewise, many authors now believe that quality science education at theprimary school level (that underpins all subsequent science education) is avital component of an effective science education regime in any country.Indeed, in New Zealand (and other Asia-Pacific countries) a relatively poorperformance in the Third International Science and Mathematics Study(TIMSS) has prompted a drive to improve primary teachers’ science con-tent knowledge, attitude and overall competence (see, Lewthwaite, 2000).Evidence of the links between good science education and economic healthcomes from studies such as the Second International Science Study con-ducted in 1984 which revealed a high correlation between primary andsecondary samples’ mean scores on the test instruments used (Postleth-waite, 1991). Benavot (1992) also found that a positive correlation existedbetween the time spent on school science correlated with economic growthrate for a variety of nations.

As a consequence, many developing countries worldwide have investedheavily in school science education since the 1960s. However, the successof such investments is debatable and by the beginning of this decade, con-cerns about instructional quality and student achievement were becomingacute (Lewin, 1993). It was considerations such as those listed above (as-sociated with basic human needs) that prompted the ‘Science for All’ para-digm arising from the UNESCO Minedap V conference (UNESCO, 1986).A variety of developmental approaches have been employed from the out-right adoption of curricula from Western countries (typically the old colo-nial powers), to endogenous curriculum development efforts (Montero-Sieburth, 1992). The authors argue here that neither the exogenous norfully endogenous strategies are maximally effective for these small states,and that a compromise strategy is required. Before discussing our ideasfor the development of primary science education in the South Pacific, weexamine some factors that we believe militate against the development ofeffective science education in the region.

Many education strategies consist of calls for a more learner-centrededucation system and curricula developed and implemented frequently at-

SOME STRATEGIES FOR PRIMARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM 159

tempt to draw on modern theories of learning such as constructivism (see,Taylor & Lucas, 2001, 1997). However, there have been a number of recentstudies that show that classroom pedagogy at all levels of education inthe South Pacific is highly teacher-dominated (see, Coll, Taylor & Ali,2002; Coll, Taylor & Fisher, 2002, and references therein). This is notsurprising because in South Pacific nations, as in many other develop-ing countries, the contents and styles of national examinations are thedeterminants of the contents and processes of teaching. Vulliamy (1988)points out that the vast majority of questions asked in school examina-tions in developing countries test factual recall rather than comprehensionor the application of knowledge. Such examinations thus encourage therote learning of facts. If one is only concerned with rote learning of sim-ple, factual materials, then a formalistic, didactic style of teaching paysdividends. Teachers in the region, as elsewhere, are subject to evaluationof their performance and this typically is measured by the performanceof their students in summative external examinations. Naturally, teachersadopt the most ‘effective’ teaching strategy; ‘effective’ as evaluated by theeducation evaluation system in use in their country. The situation is fur-ther exacerbated by teachers’ self-efficacy towards the teaching of primaryscience. If a teacher has low self-efficacy about science teaching (e.g., asevaluated by survey instruments, see Taylor & Coll, 1999), rote learning isa safe strategy as it discourages student involvement and questioning. Thismeans that the teachers’ lack of content knowledge will not be exposed.

Unfortunately when the education system rewards rote learning, thereis a low premium on the relevance of such teaching to the students’ ownlives. According to Ingle and Turner (1981), intense pressure for universityplaces and jobs in many developing countries also places a premium onexamination success:

In these circumstances, rote-learning appears to pay dividends, and the pupil expects theteacher to be the ‘transmitter of knowledge.’ Thus, even if the aims of the curriculumstate otherwise, in the absence of teachers that are able to adjust to the demands of thecurriculum, the new program can easily become sterile. (p. 361)

The examination driven systems of evaluation and the notions of poorself-efficacy in science amongst primary teachers, incomplete or inappro-priate curricula, and an acute lack of teaching materials are amongst manyproblems facing South Pacific Island nations attempting to improve pri-mary science education. Furthermore, some of these problems may requirerelatively long term solutions.

We argue here that little progress can be made towards improving pri-mary science teaching until South Pacific Island nations have developedappropriate science curricula and been supplied with the resources to help


teachers deliver them. This would appear to us to be the most logical start-ing point if the situation is to be improved. Appropriate curricula with ac-companying resources can act as a basis for both pre-service and in-servicetraining of primary teachers. Without such resources, teacher training pro-grammes are often wasted. Here we present two strategies that we believemay help in the short to medium term, and help to alleviate the importantproblem of lack of resources – and to some extent the issue of teacherconfidence – in science in the region. These strategies also represent anattempt to ‘demystify’ science teaching for people who commonly feelthat science and technology are alien or Western concepts (Liligeto, 2001;Sade & Coll, in press). It is important to emphasise that we are suggestingpragmatic and relatively low cost strategies with some sustainability.

SOME PRAGMATIC STRATEGIES FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE

SOUTH PACIFIC REGION

In this paper we present two strategies for improving primary scienceeducation in the South Pacific in the short to medium term. These strate-gies derive from research undertaken during a project entitled ‘ScienceEducation in South Pacific Schools’ (SEPS), which ran from 1998–2000and focused on primary science in the region, as the needs at this levelwere perceived to be greatest. The project was funded by the New ZealandOfficial Development Assistance (NZODA) through the UNESCO Officefor the South Pacific.

SEPS was initiated out of concerns expressed at the 6th and 7th UN-ESCO High Level Consultations of South Pacific Permanent Secretariesand Directors of Education in 1992 and 1994. These consultative meetingsidentified science education as a matter of concern to all South PacificIsland Countries (South Pacific nations) (UNESCO, 1994). In particular,concerns were expressed about the high rate of failure among studentstaking science examinations at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Thedirectors, moreover, questioned the level of scientific understanding andrelated skills their students achieved throughout their basic education inthe first 10 years of schooling. These concerns still exist despite numer-ous South Pacific initiatives to improve the quality of science teaching,including programmes to enhance students’, teachers’ and teacher educa-tors’ acquisition and application of scientific knowledge. Some countries(viz., Niue, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tokelau, Tonga and Vanuatu) havereported that their primary teachers are still not sufficiently confident orcompetent to teach science effectively (UNESCO, 1995).


The 12 countries involved in the SEPS project were: the Solomon Is-lands, Vanuatu and Fiji from Melanesia; Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau,Tuvalu, Samoa, and Tonga from Polynesia; and, Nauru, Kiribati and Mar-shall Islands from Micronesia. Many of these nations are made up of largenumbers of islands making communication extremely difficult betweenand within countries. For example, the nation of Tokelau can only bereached by a ship journey of 36 hours from Samoa. In addition, the nationalpopulations within the region vary considerably. Niue, a single island na-tion, has a population of just under 2000 with one primary school andone secondary school, while Fiji is made up of over 300 islands, has apopulation of around 800,000 with about 700 primary schools, and 140secondary schools. In all of the above countries, with the exception ofTokelau, the official language of instruction is English (although teachersmay switch to the vernacular when working at the early primary level) andall science resource materials are also produced in English.

THE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCING STRATEGY;A MEDIUM TERM INTERVENTION

The first part of the SEPS project involved an evaluation of the status ofprimary science with regard to curriculum and resources in the 12 partic-ipating nations. This evaluation has been used to develop a new strategyfor primary science curriculum development in the region and to act as thebasis of a potential project proposal. The information for this evaluationwas obtained primarily during country visits. During the evaluation, eightof the countries were visited by the SEPS project officer (the first author).Information on the remaining four countries (Cook Islands, Samoa, Toke-lau and Tuvalu) was obtained by contacting education officials while theywere on visits to the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, where thefirst and third authors were formerly based, and by interviewing curricu-lum officers by telephone. Information from country visits was obtainedthrough informal interviews and school visits. Interviews revolved arounda number of issues including the difficulties facing teachers in the teachingof primary science, the state of resources, the styles of science teachinggenerally adopted by teachers, and whether all teachers did indeed con-duct lessons in primary science, or whether some chose to omit scienceteaching altogether. School visits were also conducted in an effort to speakdirectly to teachers and triangulate the information obtained from scienceadvisors. In some cases, science lessons were observed. The curriculumdocuments and teaching resources for primary science were also examinedand discussed with teachers, science advisors and curriculum officers. Par-


ticular attention was given to the written resources (e.g., teachers’ guides)available to teachers and how effective these were perceived to be.

Each of the 12 countries involved in the SEPS project has its ownministry of education and curriculum unit. All 12 countries have now de-veloped a primary science or environmental science curriculum. Many ofthese curricula have been heavily influenced by former colonial govern-ments or larger neighbouring developed countries (especially New Zealandand Australia). Overall, as one might expect from countries at differentstages of their development, the resourcing and implementation of thesePacific Island curricula vary markedly across the region. As a generaliza-tion, countries can be grouped into three categories in this regard: coun-tries that have adopted curricula from neighbouring Western countries –the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and Tuvalu; countries that have devel-oped their own science teaching resources, often with the assistance ofaid donors – Fiji, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and Tonga; and, countriesthat have completed a curriculum outline but have not yet developed theresources to support it – Kiribati, Nauru, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands.

The major issues to come out of the SEPS evaluation were:

1. A lack of science teaching resources in many of the countries;2. The out-dated and unattractive resources (some of which are too con-

ceptually advanced) in some countries;3. A tendency for curriculum projects across the region to duplicate each

other and sometimes take little account of previous work; and4. A lack of confidence on the part of primary teachers when teaching sci-

ence, particularly if they are not provided with well-structured teachingmaterials (UNESCO, 1999).

Overall then, the situation regarding the state of primary science acrossthe South Pacific is rather patchy, as one might expect in a region wheredifferent countries with different colonial legacies, are at different stagesof their educational development. Clearly, though, little progress can bemade towards improving scientific literacy at the primary level in thosecountries which have developed curriculum outlines for science but lackthe teaching resources to deliver them, or where the teaching resources aresimply too advanced or inappropriate for primary teachers to work witheffectively. One of the recurrent problems raised by teachers and scienceadvisors across the region was a lack of confidence experienced by manyprimary teachers when teaching science, arising from their own limitedknowledge of science (UNESCO, 1999).

At present there are two main strategies for curriculum and resourcedevelopment in the South Pacific region. One is, what the authors call,the high quality/high cost approach for individual countries, where an aid


agency, working in conjunction with one of the regional countries, under-takes to fund the development of curriculum materials. In general a largeexternal funding body conceptualizes the project outline with input fromthe local ministry of education, and a variety of executing organizationstender for the contract. One of the more recent examples of such an ap-proach took place in Tonga, at the middle school level, when an AUSAIDfunded project was awarded to the Queensland Consortium of Education.The terms of reference required the Consortium to rewrite the primaryand junior secondary mathematics and language (inclusive of Tongan andEnglish) syllabi along with that for junior secondary science (years 7–10)and produce appropriate resources to deliver these. In addition, the TonganCurriculum Development Unit received new printing equipment to pro-duce these materials and training of printery staff was provided for theduration of the project (UNESCO 1998).

While such an approach generally results in the development of goodquality resources in a relatively short time frame, the expense is consid-erable (in the above example, approximately US$1.5 million). Thus toconduct such a similar exercise for primary science across a number ofcountries might prove prohibitive, even to major funding bodies such asAUSAID.

The second approach is significantly lower in cost and involves coun-tries obtaining small scale funding through a Pacific regional organization.This funding is used to run a series of writing workshops in which localteachers, with the assistance of one or more external consultants developthe format for the resource materials and then write a series of draft lessonplans to meet the course content requirements and fit the agreed format.These draft lesson plans are usually edited by a consultant and compiledinto a series of teachers’ guides which provide primary teachers with ob-jectives, teaching activities and background information for the differentscience topics in their curriculum. Thus they provide primary teachers withthe structure they lack when merely presented with a curriculum outline inscience (Taylor, 1994).

The approach has the benefit of comparatively low expenditure and astrong sense of local ownership. However, it is often extremely slow. Forexample, in Kiribati it took over seven years to produce environmentalscience materials for classes 6 and 7, although this involved the productionof only six teachers’ guides and six student workbooks.

The long period of time involved is a result of the limited funding avail-able and the consequent lack of external expertise that can be involved. Asa consequence with this low cost approach there is often a danger thatthe initial momentum and enthusiasm are lost, particularly, in the light


of high staff turnover within the ministries of education and curriculumdevelopment units in the South Pacific (Helu-Thaman, 1991).

Moreover, the limited funds available can mean that teaching materi-als go out to schools without an appropriate field trial, a situation that isfar from satisfactory. This approach leads to a considerable duplication ofeffort across the region with a number of countries attempting to producelargely similar materials (UNESCO, 1999).

Given the problems of cost and sustainable commitment associatedwith the above approaches, it would seem that a regional approach toresource development would be a more rational and cost-effective devel-opment strategy for South Pacific nations. Each country understandablyreserves the right to develop its own curricula to some extent according toits unique needs, but the shortage of trained personnel again gives rise to agreat length of time in developing new materials, as well as some doubtsabout the quality of those materials. Because of the geographical and pro-fessional isolation of most South Pacific nations, curriculum workers maynot be aware of materials being developed elsewhere – materials which,with some modification, might be eminently suitable for their purposes,fairly quickly implemented, and much less costly (Kennedy, 1980). Cer-tainly, at present many countries in the region are struggling to developresources to help deliver their primary curricula and this is happeningat an extremely slow pace with significant replication. As such, resourcedevelopment is one area where regional answers seem worthwhile. Whatfollows is a possible strategy for such a project.

Such a strategy could comprise the following components. An initialphase involving identifying a team of primary science curriculum writersfrom the Pacific region and possibly resource personnel from the SouthPacific Regional Environmental Programme and/or the University of theSouth Pacific, including a full-time co-ordinator or project manager.Through a preliminary regional workshop, the team would draw up a gen-eral primary science curriculum outline, with optional strands for the re-gion as a whole. This would comprise a detailed scope and sequence.Along with this, a common format for science teaching units would beagreed upon, and some sample units would be produced. These wouldthen be presented to individual education ministries for approval. Onceapproval is obtained the second phase would involve a second extended re-gional workshop during which participants would be provided with a widerange of resource materials. Using these resources, the team would de-velop science units to furnish the outline curriculum with complete lessonplans. This would involve developing core-teaching units first, followedby a series of optional units to offer flexibility. The third phase would


involve editing of the materials and the production of a trial version ofselected teaching units. A trial and evaluation would take place, followedby revisions and the production of camera-ready copy. In the next phase,the camera-ready copy would be submitted to the various ministries ofeducation for printing and distribution within each country. Funds couldbe sought externally to assist with this. Finally, members of the writingteam would adopt the role of trainers and provide in-service training intheir respective countries for groups of teachers and ministry officials inthe implementation of the new materials.

There is precedent for such a project, as one such common regionalcurriculum already exists. This is the Pacific Secondary Senior Curricu-lum administered by the South Pacific Board of Educational Assessment.As this is a curriculum leading to a major Pacific regional examination,the examination requires a full-time body to administer it and requires asubstantial recurrent budget. Such a body would not be necessary witha common science curriculum at the primary level. Individual countriescould use the resources produced regionally and examine the curriculumlocally, thus negating the need for the recurrent funding of a regional body.At present all of the countries within the study develop and fund their ownsummative primary assessment to assess their existing curricula (Taylor& Topalian, 1995; UNESCO, 1999). Under the strategy proposed, thiscould continue, with the difference being that the curriculum and resourceswould be developed regionally but assessed locally.

Certain difficulties arise given, for example, the differences in flora andfauna that exist between the different island nations. There is certainly lessterrestrial biodiversity amongst the atoll nations when compared to thelarger island nations. However, both types of nations share many plantsand certain animals, so units could be written to take account of suchcommonality as exists. Alternatively, some of the optional units could bewritten to meet the needs of individual countries, for example, phosphatemining in Nauru, and the loss of mangrove swamps in Fiji. If a wide rangeof units were developed, countries could choose from these to suit theirparticular needs. Finally, by developing a single but flexible course, itshould be possible to complete the task much more rapidly than is oc-curring currently. It should also be possible to produce materials of betterquality and presentability when the focus is on the development of a singleset of resources rather than a large number.

It is worthwhile to note at this stage that the provision of a regionalprimary science course with high quality materials would by no meansbe a solution to all the problems that exist in science education at thislevel. Muralidhar (1989) and Taylor (1991) have discussed the impacts of


inadequate training, large class sizes and the pervasive examination cultureon the teaching of science in the South Pacific. This situation generallyresults from a poverty of financial resources rather than any lack of po-litical will, particularly as existing educational funds are being stretchedby rapidly growing populations in many countries in the region. Thereis also evidence that poor organization and planning within ministries ofeducation contributes to problems in the delivery of good quality education(Cook & Taylor, 1995). However, for primary science in particular, with-out the provision of appropriate teaching resources in the form of teachers’handbooks, it is difficult to even begin the process of improving primaryscience education in the region.

DELIVERING SCIENCE CONCEPTS THROUGH LITERACY:A SHORT TERM STRATEGY

The second part of this paper examines a shorter-term strategy for im-proving primary science in the South Pacific region, by using literacy asa vehicle to deliver scientific concepts. One version of this strategy hasalready been implemented during the SEPS project with the developmentof the Pacific Science series, and the section that follows provides a de-scription of how that implementation took place. The authors believe thatin the short term, in the absence of appropriate resources in many SouthPacific nations, the provision of a number of science-based reading se-ries can help alleviate the problems of delivering primary science lessons.Such reading series should also be flexible enough to complement futurecurriculum initiatives.

The problems associated with primary science have already been docu-mented above, but levels of language literacy are also a cause for concernin the South Pacific. In 1993, as part of the UNDP funded Basic Educa-tion and Literacy Support (BELS) programme, a Pacific Islands LiteracyLevels test was developed and administered over a number of years, tosample groups of primary children in most of the South Pacific Islandcountries. The findings of this large-scale survey indicated that large num-bers of children were underachieving in general literacy across the region.This conclusion was based on literacy tests in English and in vernacularlanguages. Approximately a third of the cohort for English, and twentypercent for the vernacular, were deemed to be ‘at risk’ of failing to benefitfrom further schooling (BELS, 1998). As with science, many schools werefound to suffer from an acute lack of literacy resources – in both Englishand the vernacular. Furthermore, it was noted that there was a need for pro-viding teacher in-service on story book-based approaches and curriculum


development which included more books in primary literacy programmes,as well as appropriate methodology for their use.

Much has been written about the difficulties experienced by native Eng-lish speakers in coping with scientific terminology (e.g., Bell & Freyberg,1985; White, 1988). Muralidhar (1991) has demonstrated how these dif-ficulties become much more for acute for non-native English speakers(certainly in Fiji). However, these difficulties can also represent an op-portunity as Kulkarni (1988) points out, when discussing this issue in thecontext of India:

While the importance of improving language skills for better science education is beingappreciated, the role science can play in improving language skills is not fully realised . . .

What is needed is a boot-strap approach using science to higher language skills which inturn could be used for better science education. (p. 166)

This view was recently reiterated by Newton (2002) and Feasey (1999)who believe that science and literacy are inextricably linked. Without lan-guage literacy, children will find it more difficult to engage with science,and doors to a range of literature, both fiction and non-fiction, will certainlybe closed. Feasey argues that society needs literate people who are alsoscientifically literate, as the two together enable people – both individuallyand collectively – to engage with a democratic system that enables peopleto contribute to science directly or indirectly.

Holiday, Yore and Alvermann (1994) have highlighted the apparentkinship between science and reading. They argue that as reading is a socialevent, the value of the interactive-constructivist model of reading to sci-ence teaching, lies in the philosophical compatibility between this modeland constructivist models of science learning. This kinship allows scienceeducators to access a substantial body knowledge about, and processes in,reading that may help address recurring problems in science learning.

Hand, Prain, Lawrence and Yore (1999) have focused on the positiveimpact that writing can have for enhancing learning in an interactive-cons-tructivist science classroom. They believe that, amongst other things, writ-ing in science can develop reasoning, engage students’ prior knowledgeand consolidate new concepts into prior understanding also. However, forthis to happen effectively, students need to understand that writing canserve a range of purposes in learning science, not just the traditional roleof keeping accurate records etc., such as writing to speculate about pos-sible causes and explanations, to clarify ideas and to make preliminaryobservations. Hand and Prain (1995) have provided examples of differ-ent writing types in science including creative writing and producing abrochure.


McKeon (2000) makes the important observation that primary teachersare expected to teach both literacy and science, so developing links be-tween these two areas is ‘economical’ in terms of planning and providesa cohesiveness that enhances both literacy and science work for children.Although written in the context of the United Kingdom, this statementcould apply equally in the South Pacific where science and literacy form anintegral part of all primary curricula. McKeon, like Asoko (1997) believesthere is plenty of scope for the use of stories in science as they can beused as starting points for pupils’ scientific questions, for discussion aboutissues or to provide the context for investigation. Furthermore, McKeonbelieves that science can act as a useful stimulus for literacy activitiesif pupils can create stories based around their investigations or researchor use them to explain their scientific ideas. This latter notion has beenemployed by McMahon (1999) who describes the development of a ‘bigbook’ project with a Year-5 primary class in which the class researchedand produced their own ‘big books’ on specific science topics, thus effec-tively linking science and literacy. Certainly, the use of ‘story’ to assist inthe delivery of science concepts is particularly appropriate for the SouthPacific where there is still a strong oral tradition in which stories play asignificant part (see, e.g., Finnegan & Orbell, 1995; Simms, 1983).

Thus it appears that there is considerable support amongst authors onprimary education for linking science and literacy when opportunitiespresent themselves. Certainly, many of the ideas and sentiments expressedabove underpin the development of Pacific Science series.

The idea of developing the Pacific Science Series was to provide somegood quality materials for primary teachers, who were struggling to de-velop adequate science teaching resources within a short time period (lessthan 18 months). The series was not intended to be a complete sciencecourse, but simply to allow primary teachers to deliver some science andgenerate enthusiasm for the subject amongst their pupils, as well as toenhance primary science teachers’ self-efficacy towards teaching science.It was also felt that if science concepts could be delivered through high in-terest stories, both fiction and non-fiction, this would tend to make scienceless intimidating to teachers and pupils alike. Since the lack of confidencein their science ability was cited by many teachers as a major problem(UNESCO, 1999), any approach which improved this situation and helpeddemystify science was seen as appropriate.

Funding from the SEPS project was provided for the development of aseries of 10 science readers and an accompanying teachers’ resource bookwith extension activities in both science and literacy. As local ownershipof any project is of paramount importance (Cook & Taylor, 1994, 1995)


the series was developed at a regional workshop held in 1999 at whichparticipants from 12 South Pacific Island nations were represented. Priorto the workshop an analysis of a number of the primary science courseoutlines in the South Pacific region was conducted. This helped ensure thatthe topics for the series were similar to those being taught across the region.Generally, primary science courses were divided into themes. For example,the main themes in Vanuatu were: Living Things, Matter and Energy. InFiji the themes were: Life Science, Physical Science and Earth Science,while in Nauru they were: Life, Energy, Earth Science, Matter and Timeand Space. Thus there are strong similarities between these themes rightacross the South Pacific region. Furthermore, many of the topics withinthese themes are very similar from one country to another. Consequently,the suggested titles of the readers reflected these common themes and top-ics. This was an important issue in making the series equally relevant toall countries. Each participant was asked to arrive at the workshop withbrief outlines for three stories on given topics. At the workshop the localparticipants initially received training in story writing and editing fromtwo consultants from Learning Media Ltd. of New Zealand. They thenproceeded to develop their outline stories into a series of draft readers.In total, 70 drafts were produced and taken to Learning Media, where 10were selected, edited and illustrated for the series. The readers were notmodelled on traditional ‘information books’ but took the form of highinterest stories. Each story centred on a single science concept and thestories were intended to be used as a starting point to capture the interestand imagination of pupils at the primary level. For example, the conceptof sound was examined through a story from Tonga, ‘The Wooden Drum’,about a traditional drum used to summon villagers to church.

The teachers’ resource book to accompany the series was prepared bytwo staff members of the University of the South Pacific. For each of the10 readers, this provided a ‘reading focus’ lesson plan to help structurethe pupils’ reading activities. It was considered very important that pupilshad full mastery of the reading and language elements of the text beforethey began to explore the underlying science concepts with them. Thusthe teachers were provided with a brief overview of the story; informationabout descriptive words; suggestions for setting the scene before reading;things to stress during the first reading and when revisiting the text; and,finally some follow-up activities, including writing activities. All of theseactivities linked back to the main science concept and thus were intended todevelop literacy skills while promoting a better understanding of science.Thus the series attempts to improve learning in science by developing theskills children need to access sciences as advocated by McKeon (2000).


The ‘reading focus’ section of each book was followed by a ‘sciencefocus’ section that provided background information on the topic alongwith suggestions for simple science activities that could be undertaken us-ing local materials. Thus, for example, the ‘science focus’ for the ‘WoodenDrum’ provided teachers with information on how sound is produced andtravels; information that many would simply be unaware of due to limitedtraining. There were also several simple activities to illustrate these ideas,including an exploration of sound travelling through different media, andways of altering the pitch of a note. All of the activities were designedto give children hands-on experience of science at an early age withoutplacing excessive demands on teachers in terms of resources. Furthermore,the background information provided for the teachers offered them supportby providing explanations for the outcomes of the activities.

The materials were trial-tested in primary schools in Cook Islands,Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. In each case, the read-ers were trialed with different year groups to determine the most appro-priate level for their use and to identify particularly difficult words. Thetrials gave teachers an opportunity to gauge the clarity of the instructionsin the Teachers’ Resource Book. In general, the teachers reported that oncethe appropriate reading level had been established, the degree of interestshown by the children was high. They also commented favourably on thegeneral layout and quality of the illustrations used in the readers. The trialsshowed that the language level in the readers was appropriate for use atthe primary level across the South Pacific region. Furthermore, there wereindications that they might be effective in stimulating teachers’ and pupils’thinking in literacy and science. One teacher in the Solomon Islands re-turned, along with her evaluation, a ‘Big Book’ which her class producedbased on one of the readers, ‘Hunting the Moon’. The same teacher alsoreturned a series of extension activities she had developed from this storyto help improve her pupils’ vocabulary.

The series was subsidised through funding from the SEPS project tomake it affordable to ministries of education and schools in the SouthPacific Region. In addition, countries will receive limited funds from theSEPS project to enable them to buy sets of readers and teachers’ guides.The series also appears to provide positive links between science and lit-eracy, in which the two help reinforce each other. The production of thePacific Science Series was also very low cost in comparison to many re-gional aid-funded projects. Furthermore, the readers provide a basis forboth in-service and pre-service training, and there is considerable scopefor producing further series of this type and translating some of them intothe vernacular.


CONCLUSIONS

Although the two regional strategies proposed in this article may seem bothsimple and logical, in the view of the authors, that is precisely what is re-quired in the South Pacific region (and perhaps also in other regions facingsimilar curriculum issues – like Asia and Africa). Too many aid-fundededucation projects are expensive, logistically problematic, have limitedsustainability, and frequently replicate each other. Despite the presence ofa number of funding bodies in the region, the amount of financial supportavailable remains necessarily limited. This is reflected in the poor stateof educational resourcing in many countries (UNESCO, 1999). It is theauthors’ case that to maximize the benefits of what support can realisticallybe called upon, the use of all fiscal resources needs to be rationalized, in thecase of school curriculum and resource provision, by adopting a regionalapproach wherever feasible, albeit without compromising cooperating na-tions’ individuality or independence. The alternative is that most systemswill remain impoverished in this area for some time to come.

While there is no guarantee that providing better resources will neces-sarily lead to better primary science education, they would provide a verygood basis for improvement. At the time of writing, for example, AUSAIDis funding a A$5 million project to upgrade the main primary teachers’ col-lege in Fiji. This involves rewriting the curricula in most subject areas andproviding new resources to help deliver these (Griffith University, 2002).While this is an admirable project, the resulting graduates will begin teach-ing primary science using a curriculum and resources developed in 1976.In fact some of the teachers’ guides retain the ‘trial’ on the front cover.These guides are not only of poor quality in terms of their production,but the pedagogy is highly prescriptive and outdated (UNESCO, 1999).Unfortunately, past experience would suggest that the teachers will followthese guides deviating little from the text (Taylor, 1991), as their contentforms the basis of the of the public examination in science at the end ofprimary school in Fiji.

With better resource materials it is likely that such a project would bemore effective as such resources could also be used as a basis for train-ing. Unfortunately the existing resources only serve as poor models ofpedagogy.

Unfortunately, there is now a marked trend away from regionalismin favour of nationalism in educational planning at the tertiary level atleast, among South Pacific countries. For example, until recently, tertiaryeducation was deemed best provided at the regional level – hence the estab-lishment of the University of the South Pacific that serves the 12 regional


countries. However, the advent of the National University of Samoa ap-pears to be the first move towards individual national tertiary institutions.Other countries in the region, most notably Tonga and Solomon Islands,have also made clear their intention to establish national universities.

While there is likely to be little or no resistance to the production ofmore reading series developed through regional collaboration, realistically,for various political reasons, it may be unlikely that all 12 South Pacificnations will agree to develop a fully resourced common primary sciencecurriculum. However, if only a few of the 12 countries agree to collaborate,they may achieve a ‘critical mass’ that is likely to allow them to producegood quality science resources, at an acceptable cost which benefit bothteachers and students.

REFERENCES

Asoko, H. (1997). Reading for science learning. Primary Science Review, 50, 4–6.Basic Education and Literacy Support Programme (BELS) (1998). Annual report. Suva,

Fiji: Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific.Bell, B. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Language in the science classroom. In R. Osborne &

P. Freyberg, Learning in science. Auckland: Heinemann.Benavot, A. (1992). Curricular content, educational expansion, and economic growth.

Comparative Education Review, 36(2), 150–174.Coll, R.K., Taylor, N. & Ali, S. (2002). Investigating tertiary level teacher-student interac-

tions in Fiji using the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI). Directions: Journalof Educational Studies (page numbers, etc. missing here).

Coll, R.K., Taylor, N. & Fisher, D. (2002). The application of the Questionnaire on TeacherInteraction QTI and College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI)instruments in a multicultural tertiary context. Research in Science and TechnologicalEducation, 20(2), 165–183.

Cook, A. & Taylor, N. (1994). Robust adaptive processes: The case for laboratory techni-cians in Fiji schools. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in South East Asia,17(2), 7–15.

Cook, A. & Taylor, N. (1995). The sustainability of aided curriculum development projects:The need for robust adaptive processes. Pacific-Asian Education Journal, 7(1–2), 67–71.

Feasey, R. (1999). Primary science and literacy. Hatfield Harts, England: ASE.Finnegan, R. & Orbell, M. (1995). South Pacific oral traditions. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.Griffith University (2002). Terms of reference of the Lautoka Teachers’ College upgrade

project. Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.Hand, B. & Prain, V. (1995). Using writing to help improve students’ understanding.

Secondary Science Review, 77(278), 112–117.Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C. & Yore, D. (1999). A writing in science framework

designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10),1021–1035.

Helu-Thaman, K. (1991). A letter from a curriculum officer. In C. Benson (Ed.), Report ofthe Pacific curriculum conference. March issue, 11–15, Suva, Fiji.


Holiday, W.G., Yore, L.D. & Alvermann, D.F. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing conection: Breakthroughs, barriers and promises. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 31(2), 877–893.

Ingle, R.B. & Turner, A.D. (1981). Science curricula as cultural misfits. European Journalof Science Education, 3, 357–371.

Kennedy, T. (1980). Are there regional answers to the education problems of small islandstates. In R.T. Shand (Ed.), The island states of the Pacific and Indian Oceans: Anatomyof development (pp. 347–386). Canberra, Australia: Australian National University.

Kulkarni, V.G. (1988). Role of language in science education. In P. Fensham (Ed.),Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 150–167). London: Falmer.

Lewin, K. (1993). Planning policy on science education in developing countries. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 15(1), 1–15.

Lewthwaite, B. (2000). Temporary or permanent changes: Training science teacher percep-tions and reflections. In R.K. Coll (Ed.), SAME papers (pp. 110–127). Hamilton, NewZealand: Centre for Science and Technology Education Research.

Liligeto, A.G. (2001). Perceptions of technology and technology education in SolomonIslands and Fiji. Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Waikato: Hamilton, NewZealand.

McKeon, F. (2000). Literacy and secondary science – building on the primary experience.Secondary Science Review, 81(297), 45–50.

McMahon, K. (1999). A ‘big book’ project linking science and literacy. Primary ScienceReview, 59, 7–9.

Montero-Sieburth, M. (1992). Strategies and practice of curriculum change in developingcountries. Comparative Education Review, 36(2), 175–193.

Muralidhar, S. (1989). An exploratory study of a science curriculum in action: Basicscience in Fiji. Unpublished PhD thesis. Monash University: Melbourne, Australia.

Muralidhar, S. (1991). The role of language in science education: Some reflections fromFiji. Research in Science Education, 21, 253–262.

Newton, D.P. (2002). Talking sense in science. London: Routledge/Falmer.Postlethwaite, T.N. (1991). Achievement in science education in 1984 in 23 countries. In

T. Husen & J.P. Keeves (Eds.), Issues in science education: Science competence in asocial and ecological context (pp. 35–64). New York: Pergamon.

Sade, D. & Coll, R.K. (in press). Solomon Island stakeholders’ views of technology andtechnology education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.

Simms, N. (1983). Oral and traditional literatures. Hamilton, N.Z.: Outrigger Publishers.Taufe’ulungaki, A. (1993). Educational provision and operation: Regional dimensions in

the South Pacific. In K. Bacchus & C. Brock (Eds.), The challenge of scale: Educationaldevelopment in the small island states of the Commonwealth. London: CommonwealthSecretariat.

Taylor, N. (1991). An analysis of the Fiji Junior Certificate Basic Science examination andits implications for the teaching of science in Fiji. Journal of Science and MathematicsEducation in South East Asia, 14(2), 73–78.

Taylor, N. (1994). Improving environmental education in the Republic of Kiribati:Constraints and future prospects. Pacific-Asian Education Journal, 6(1), 4–10.

Taylor, N. & Coll, R.K. (1999). Pre-service primary teachers self-efficacy in scienceteaching: The Fiji perspective. Pacific-Asian Education, 11(1), 31–44.

Taylor, N. & Lucas, K. (1997). The trial of an innovative science program for pre-serviceprimary teachers in Fiji. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25(3), 325–343.


Taylor, N. & Lucas, K. (2001). Some learning outcomes from a science program for pre-service primary teachers undertaken in the context of a developing country. Evaluationand Research in Education, 15(4), 228–249.

Taylor, N. & Topalian, T. (1995). Environmental education in the South Pacific: Anevaluation of progress in three countries. The Environmentalist, 15(3), 159–169.

UNESCO. (1986). Education in Asia and the Pacific – Retrospect: Prospect. Bangkok:UNESCO.

UNESCO (1994). Report of the workshop on science education in Pacific schools. Apia,Samoa: UNESCO Office for the Pacific States.

UNESCO (1995). Science education in Pacific Schools (SEPS): A sub-regional develop-ment project. Apia, Samoa: UNESCO Office for the Pacific States.

UNESCO (1998). The status of primary science in the Tonga and Nuie. Apia, Samoa:UNESCO Office for the Pacific States.

UNESCO (1999). The status of primary science in the South Pacific region. Apia, Samoa:UNESCO Office for the Pacific States.

Vulliamy, G. (1988). Third world schools. In S. Briceno & D.C. Pit (Eds.), New ideas inenvironmental education (pp. 143–157). London: Croom Helm.

Walberg, H.J. (1991). Improving school science in advanced and developing countries.Review of Educational Research, 61(1), 25–69.

White, R.T. (1988). Learning science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Neil TaylorSchool of Education,University of New England,Armidale, NSW 2351,AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

Barend VlaardingerbroekPO Box 75,Ruatoria 3851,New Zealand

Richard K. CollCentre for Science and Technology Education Research,The University of Waikato, New Zealand

exploiting curriculum commonality in small island states: some strategies for primary science...

Documents