Australian teachers' perspectives of two distinct physics curriculum paradigms

Physics was once described as 'a school subject in need of change' [1]. Motivations for change are related to a familiar set of challenges and issues within physics education. Largely, these include a general sense of inaccessibility, limited student interest, a decline in physics enrolments, and issues with inclusivity with students who are female, Indigenous, of lower socio-economic status, and otherwise a minority [2–9].

In the state of New South Wales (NSW) in Australia, for example, physics enrolments and the proportion of female ³ students choosing Physics at the senior high school level are both at low historical levels and in decline (figure 1). Research also shows that students who study Physics are more likely to be from socially advantaged backgrounds, and that studying Physics provides a numerical advantage on the high school ranking score, which determines university admission [8].

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Over the last few decades and around the world, reformed curricula which aim to address these issues, particularly inclusivity, tend to share certain characteristics, such as being more context-based, more relevant to the 'real world', and integrating technological, social and cultural perspectives [e.g. 6, 10]. In Australia, around the turn of the century, most of the senior high school curricula across the different states moved away from 'traditional' notions of physics curriculum and towards more contextualized curricula which incorporate applications and embed the history of physics [e.g. 11, 12], with the NSW case being the archetypal example.

Proponents of context-based curricula argue that these curricula help students see the relevance of science to their everyday lives and result in an increase in interest and enjoyment of science [13]. Those who support more 'traditional' curricula argue that their hierarchical and abstract nature are an inherent characteristic of the subject, and necessary if students are to gain apprenticeship into the discipline [14, 15]. Improvements in achievement, attitudes and transfer (being able to use knowledge in different contexts) are more difficult to report conclusively [13], which is perhaps why the pendulum continues to swing between these two paradigms [16].

1.1. The old and the new syllabuses

The study adopted a survey design. Data was collected from NSW senior secondary physic teachers and educators using a questionnaire hosted on Qualtrics that examined NSW physics teachers' perceptions of the 'New' and 'Old' physics syllabuses. The questionnaire consisted of nine demographic questions, 18 Likert-style questions and 8 open-ended response questions. The closed items were measured using a 6-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Disagree more than agree = 3, Agree more than disagree = 4, Agree = 5, Strongly Agree = 6). This human study was approved by Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval: H14711). All adult participants provided consent to participate in this study, including for data to be published and/or presented in a variety of fora.

We received a total of 49 responses, though only 37 were admissible after deleting incomplete submissions. Whilst it is not known how many practicing Physics teachers there are in NSW (and how many are physics-trained versus those teaching 'out-of-field'), based on student enrolments, it is likely this number is somewhere between 300 and 600. Of the 37 physics teachers, 17 were female and 20 were male. Most of the respondents had more than 10 years' experience (n = 19, or 51%) with 14 having between 3 and 10 years of experience and four with less than three years' experience. The vast majority of respondents were current practicing qualified physics teachers (n = 33, 89%), with a small number of respondents which we classify as educators, including one out-of-field teacher, one 'non-practicing' teacher (e.g. retiree) and one 'other'. Again, 33 of respondents had experience teaching both the current and the previous syllabus and 32 were teaching both year 11 and 12 currently. Without knowing the distribution of students in each of the school sectors and regions, it is not possible to ascertain whether there was a representative sample, however all school sectors (Independent 51%, Government 49%) and regions (seven from regional areas and two from schools rural or remote areas) were represented in the returned surveys.

Both Likert and open-ended questions were analysed to answer a range of existing questions or concerns highlighted in the literature and media, as outlined in the background section of this paper. Likert-type responses underwent descriptive analysis, including calculations of frequency, mean and median. Because Likert responses omitted a neutral option, statements forced a classification as 'agreeable' or 'disagreeable' based on median scores, with higher scores indicating ordinally higher levels of agreement and disagreement. The open-ended questions underwent content analysis, to identify categories as responses to questions (see below).

• -  
  What are the key strengths of the current Stage 6 Physics Syllabus?
• -  
  What were the key strengths of the previous syllabus?
• -  
  Do you find the current syllabus disadvantages certain groups of students? If yes, which groups, and how?
• -  
  Do you find more students discontinuing/continuing physics at the end of Year 11? What could be the reason?
• -  
  What is your observation on student engagement and interest with the content covered in the syllabus, particularly in the Depth Studies?
• -  
  Do you think the current syllabus enhances gender differences in physics interests? (e.g. topics generally favour interests of any particular gender only?). Please explain your experience.
• -  
  In general what would you like to see changing in the current syllabus?
• -  
  Please add any other comment you wish to make on the current syllabus and your experiences on teaching it.

Content analysis occurred either with respect to broad categories (e.g. best qualities of syllabus) or both categories and sentiment analysis (i.e. 'yes' or 'no' and associated categories, or 'positive', 'neutral' or 'negative', with associated categories). For instance, for the question 'what were the strengths of the previous syllabus?', the two most popular responses related to 'options' and 'context', representing the presence of option topics (and therefore choice) and the inclusion of social and historical contexts. Responses could be coded to more than one category if more than one reason was provided, thus totals do not add up to the total number of participants. Coding was checked by the first and second authors until 100% agreement was reached. All questions are presented individually apart from the two final questions, where responses were combined and coded together.

Responses to Likert-type questions are provided in figure 2. Questions are presented in the order in which they appeared on the survey, though the questions themselves are truncated for ease of representation. As figure 2 shows, teachers agreed that the new syllabus taught the 'real' physics (95%) and was more rigorous (97%). The new syllabus was also considered to appropriately prepare students for university physics (86%), was more valuable (83%) and suitable for students who were academically stronger (83%) though teachers were unsure (53% agreeable) about whether there were fewer students enrolling in the subject or more students withdrawing after one year (46% agreeable). Teachers agreed (78%) that the new syllabus was more difficult and about 67% felt the new syllabus was better without the social and historical contexts. Teachers disagreed (67%) that the new syllabus increased access for students but they did agree that there was an increase in the quality overall of physics education at the senior high school level (78%). Seventy-one per cent of teachers also felt that the new syllabus was engaging. In terms of teachers' perspectives of the new topics, 62% agreed that there were topics in the new syllabus that were unfamiliar to them, and the response was slightly less agreeable (57%) when asked about whether the topics were abstract for students. Consistent with the previous question around social and historical contexts, when asked whether the new syllabus should include these, teachers responded in the negative (76%). Fifty-seven per cent of teachers also disagreed that the syllabus was less cluttered. In response to questions around whether the depth study led to deeper learning, or if there was a change in student interest, teachers were split (both 49% agreeable).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Figures 3(a)–(d) show the results of the content analysis for a selection of the open-ended questions. Figure 3(a) identifies the strengths of the 'new' syllabus. The 'more maths' category, which was the most mentioned (10 counts), implied the emphasis on mathematics in the new syllabus was a key strength. For 'individual topics', a range of suggestions related to individual topics being included or not included in the new syllabus were present. The 'sequencing and structure' category included responses which praised the way the topics were organized and sequenced in the syllabus. 'Practical skills' contained references to the New Syllabus developing practical skills in students and 'real physics' simply contains mentions that the new syllabus involved teaching the real physics. Finally, 'problem solving' responses referred to the syllabus as facilitating authentic problem solving and 'uni preparation' included references to the New Syllabus appropriately preparing students for university studies in physics.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Figure 3(b)) identifies the strengths of the Old syllabus. Four categories ('nothing', 'pacing', 'prescriptive' and 'had more time') were removed due to attracting only one coding count each. The most popular response, 'context' (13 counts), included references to the social and historical contexts included in the Old Syllabus. 'Options' (8 counts) similarly referred to the inclusion of option topics in the Old Syllabus. 'Accessible/Easier' responses acknowledged that the Old Syllabus was more accessible or easier to teach (or easier for the students to understand) and 'individual topics' was coded the same as for the previous question. Results from these two questions thus show that teachers preferred the new syllabus, identifying it as structured well, having the appropriate level of mathematics and offering adequate preparation for university study. For instance, one teacher explained that the new syllabus is 'more mathematical, better indication of what physics is about. Prepares students better for uni'. However, there was some tension amongst responses related to the social and historical contexts. Whilst the quantitative results favour the removal of the social and historical contexts, many teachers continued to identify this as a strength of the previous syllabus (13 out of 29 counts, figure 3(b)): 'The context provided a narrative to engage the students'. Some teachers noted that option topics helped with engagement whilst others noted that the most popular option topic ('Quanta to Quarks') had been embedded in the core topics of the new syllabus.

Regarding the question of whether the syllabus excludes certain groups of students, 17 of respondents said 'yes', whilst 12 answered 'no'. The three main reasons for exclusion included those not having the appropriate 'numeracy' (mathematics) background (10 counts), a 'general inaccessibility' (6 counts) and students with English as an Additional Language ('EALD') (2 counts). For instance, one participant explains that 'less lower ability students seem to be as interested but physics is not really a subject suitable for lower ability students'. Two additional categories were excluded ('women', 'class'), due to attracting only one count. Whilst entering data for this question, a gender split in the respondents was noticed. Whilst we cannot perform any statistical tests on these data due to the small population numbers in any sub groupings, of those who provided answers for gender, 64% of 'Yes' respondents were female, and 67% of respondents to 'No' were male.

There was uncertainty regarding participants' views on whether there were more students discontinuing after the first year of the physics course (Year 11), with 13 participants answering 'yes', and 11 'no' (four unsure). The two reasons for withdrawal were identified as 'difficulty' (5) and 'ATAR' (5). 'Difficulty' responses included acknowledgements that 'Yes. It's difficult' was the reason for withdrawal. ATAR stands for the 'Australian Tertiary Admission Rank' and is the numerical value provided to students that represents their amalgamated rank for the purposes of University Admission. Coding to this category relates to the strategy students tend to make when attempting to maximize their ATAR by choosing less difficult or more strongly 'weighted' subjects [35]: 'The universities are not requiring physics so often students will choose easier subjects because it is more enjoyable'. A number of teachers also explained that students were 'counselled out' of the subject prior to selection (or year 12) to minimize withdrawals.

Sentiment towards Depth Studies were also split (eight positive, six neutral and eight with negative sentiments), with reasons for responses shown in figure 3(c). 'Student dependent' responses indicated that whether the depth study was successful or not depended on the student. For instance, one participant notes that 'A few ... students engage well and there (sic) interest is peaked (sic). The vast majority of students see the depth study as just another task and regurgitate standard investigations'. The Depth Study was also considered 'too demanding' as another teacher explains: 'Depth studies are awful. Students don't have the skill or maturity yet to work this independently.' When coding to the category of 'time', responses were selected which specifically mentioned that they took too much time (out of core learning), as one participant explains: 'The depth studies are a nuisance as they take students away from the core learning for an extended period of time'. 'Interest' was coded when respondents explained that there was a noticeable improvement in terms of student interest or engagement: 'Students enjoy the individualised part of Depth study'. 'Assessment and design' responses focused on the overall design of the Depth Study, particularly related to how it was assessed or contributed to the overall assessment mark: 'Depth Studies, due to their constraints, tend to be assessed in a regimental manner, leading to a narrow range of grades'. Two participants also noted that the depth studies were difficult to assess, and students' work related to the depth studies was 'lackluster'. The 'not-as-intended' category captured respondents who expressed favourable attitudes towards the depth study as an idea but one that did not translate into practice: 'The depth study aspect was not well-thought out—it is more of an idealistic "pie-in-the-sky" that is (in large part) trampled by demands for academic achievement. A lot of schools use depth study time for consolidation of syllabus content'.

Finally, when asked about whether there was gender bias in the syllabus (figure 3(d)), 15 respondents answered 'no', whilst 12 answered 'yes'. For 'yes' responses, reasons for a perceived gender bias included 'women in syllabus' which referred to the lack of women physicists mentioned in the syllabus. As one teacher explains, the new syllabus is 'very male-centric with no explicit references to women involved in physics'. 'Syllabus not an issue' responses claimed the syllabus itself cannot (or is not) the problem causing gender bias. These views represented an assumption that the issues were not related to the syllabus ('I don't think the syllabus itself is gendered'). Some alternative reasons for the lack of female participation were offered, including students preconceptions: '... the preconceived ideas by girls' or teachers: 'No. Teacher's responsibility to ensure all students are included'. The category 'boys physics' captures responses which explained there are simply more boys in physics (or boys have a stronger inclination towards physics) and include responses such as 'Since the new syllabus [New Syllabus] the classes are dominated by males in comprehensive school' and 'Classes are still male dominated ...'. 'Stereotypes' responses explicitly referred to the stereotypes around studying physics: 'don't think it is but more boys choose it than girls—could be due to stereotypes and boys needing physics for engineering'. Finally, 'syllabus characteristics' responses mainly referred to the change in syllabus characteristics such as the removal of context and option topics: 'Yes as many of the girls I teach favour the social context approach'.

There were eight coding categories for the final two questions (another nine were excluded due to only attracting one count). Sixteen counts related to the need to remove additional content; four pertaining to the need to change sequencing or structuring (suggestions of only minor adjustments); ten responses suggested that the depth studies needed to be removed or altered; another four wished for more prescription in the syllabus; three hoped for more women being mentioned in the syllabus; and, six desired for it to be more accessible. Four commented on the nature of the assessment and another eight simply expressed that the syllabus was acceptable as it was.

Teachers were clear in their preference for the New Syllabus. Comments revealed that overall, a curriculum which was intuitively sequenced, strongly coherent, prescriptive, mathematical, and easily assessed was most valued. A curriculum with these qualities, according to teachers, would more likely place students in a position to do well in their final exams, and prepare students for university study. However, teachers' responses to the survey revealed that there remained a number of tensions.

First, there was a tension related to what teachers 'wanted' to teach and what could realistically be included in the syllabus due to constraints related to time and assessment. This was most clear in the discussions around the social-historical elements of the Old Syllabus that were removed, and the depth study, which was a new element to the New Syllabus. Teachers felt that including social and historical narratives was important, but they also felt that these narratives wasted class time and that the way they were assessed resulted in the material being superficially addressed. Research on context-based curriculum research has consistently noted this pushback. For example, as far back as 1998, Louden et al explain that '... there was a continuing tension between completing the content and attending to the contexts as suggested by the syllabus' [36, p 44]. Yates and Millar more recently explain that 'there is a tension (at least in terms of content selection or time allocation) between acquiring knowledge and tools that are useful in the world, and understanding and respecting what physics is doing and what role it has in the world' (emphasis added) [15, p. 304]. Similarly, depth studies were considered a good idea 'in theory' but challenges include the ambiguity of the task within a high-stakes environment and how to assess them. All of this is consistent with descriptions of physics as a science of very well-defined core concepts, whose academic power is due to its hierarchically and abstraction [14, 15]. However, others note that such a focus encourages narrow assessment practices and in turn, this narrows the curriculum [37]. For instance, Bao et al found that learning about the core 'facts' comes at the expense of other skills and knowledge, such as scientific reasoning [38]. Particularly at a time where more 'soft skills' are being recognized, such as creativity [39], and Nature of Science [40], it is useful to consider whether the more narrow approach is serving students who wish to continue into a physics career.

Second, the issue of girls' participation represented a significant tension. Teacher participants seem to support the view that there was an inherent difference in boys' and girls' interest, or at least that the syllabus itself was not responsible for the gender gap. However, we know from research, that interest and performance in physics is not simply biological [29]. Socially constructed identities and cultural expectations play a significant role. For instance, the gender disparity endemic across western countries is not evident in Muslim majority countries, with women constituting up to 90% of physics students in some undergraduate programs [41]. Whilst the participation issue is complex, as [32, 33] explain, changes to the way physics is portrayed in curriculum documents, such as including the names of female physicists, are straightforward, and may not 'solve' the problem entirely, but will likely contribute to reducing gender stereotypes.

In terms of access more generally, male teachers tended to not recognise any issues, consistent with the view that physics was 'inherently' an elite subject in the sense that certain groups of students were necessarily excluded [36]. Whilst some students, particularly those without the mathematical background, are not suited to study of physics at this level, the exclusion that is problematic, such as that identified by female participants as students from EALD backgrounds, is a concern. Similarly, as research shows, students who are from lower socio-economic backgrounds are similarly excluded [19], which implies that there is something about the subject that discourages able students from these groups from participating.

In general, we note that teachers' perspectives relating to the preferences for prescription, mathematics and strong sequencing in curricula, with tensions relation to narrowing and access, are consistent with research in other parts of the world, and over time. However, the very fact that these changes are cyclical (with a march to and from 'traditional' syllabi) justifies further attention to the different curricula paradigms and if (and how) they can be reconciled [1], for instance, explains that in general, the reasons supporting curriculum design are often invisible: 'The process of developing prescribed curricula has been subject to little empirical investigation, and there have been few attempts to develop theoretical frameworks for understanding the shape and content of particular subjects' [1, p 1055]. A first step, therefore, might be a stronger articulation of what matters in physics education.

Whilst the results are generally consistent with the extant literature, it is important to acknowledge the limitations posed by the research. In particular, although the sample included participants from the major demographic categories, the sample was relatively small and not fully representative, contributing to a potential bias. As such, findings cannot be used to generalize about the whole population of physics teachers.

This research examined teachers' perspectives on two curricula paradigms; one involving a contextual syllabus intended to improve participation in the subject, and the other identified as a 'back to basics' syllabus which teachers often consider the 'real physics'. Teachers generally approved of the New Syllabus representing the 'back to basics' paradigm, but not without any consequences. Tensions exist around the narrowing of the curriculum and access to the curriculum, particularly in relation to girls' participation. Recommendations include greater clarity around syllabus development, particularly as it applies to the epistemological issues, and a stronger articulation of what is important for physics education.

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the authors.