Launch, Inquire, Act – A framework for teaching and learning science
Using a place-based catchment water game to teach concepts and skills for sustainable water management
A literacy focus in science - teaching preservice primary teachers about semantic gravity
Book review: Computer Technology for Curious Kids
The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association
S
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
Volume 71 | Number 1 | February 2025
AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
Teaching Science is a quarterly journal published by the Australian Science Teachers Association. This journal aims to promote the teaching of science in all Australian schools, with a focus on classroom practice. It acts as a means of communication between teachers, consultants and other science educators across Australia. Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the various authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Australian Science Teachers Association or the editorial advisory committee.
Academic contributions to Teaching Science are peer reviewed.
PUBLISHED BY:
Australian Science Teachers Association
Level 14, 275 Alfred St, North Sydney NSW 2060 Tel: 02 9346 9600
Contents indexed in Australian Education Index (ACER) and Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC).
Unattributed images supplied by ASTA or from Adobe Stock.
Editor John Glistak
Editorial Advisory Committee
Dr. Joe Ferguson, School of Education, Deakin University, VIC
Prof. Ange Fitzgerald, RMIT University, VIC
Sonia Hueppauff, Just Think Cognition, WA
As/Prof. Rekha Koul, Curtin University, WA
As/Prof. Kieran Lim, Deakin University, VIC
As/Prof. Reece Mills, QUT, QLD
Geoff Quinton, Pearson Australia
Richard Rennie, Fremantle Light and Sound Discovery Centre, WA
Dr. Emily Rochette, The University of Melbourne, VIC
Julie-Anne Smith, Eye for Detail, WA
Dr. Emma Stevenson, The University of Melbourne, VIC
Dr. Fiona Trapani, St Columba’s College, VIC
Prof. Russell Tytler, School of Education, Deakin University, VIC
As/Prof. Dr Peta White, School of Education, Deakin University, VIC
From the President Margaret Shepherd
Report:
NSTA National Conference on Science Education – New Orleans 2024
The National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) National Conference on Science Education, held in New Orleans in 2024, was an extraordinary opportunity to engage with global leaders in science education, exchange ideas, and explore cutting-edge teaching practices. Representing the Australian Science Teachers Association (ASTA), I attended alongside ASTA’s President-Elect, Paula Taylor, where we participated in valuable discussions on the future of science teaching and learning.
Paula Taylor, who has recently been elected as ASTA’s next President, is a highly respected educator with a wealth of experience in science teaching, curriculum development, and leadership. She has been a strong advocate for high-quality STEM education and has played a key role in supporting science teachers through professional learning initiatives and education policy. Paula’s leadership will be instrumental in guiding ASTA forward, ensuring that Australian science teachers have access to the resources, knowledge, and support needed to inspire the next generation of scientists.
Throughout the conference, several key themes emerged that align with ASTA’s mission. A major focus was the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital tools in science education, with sessions exploring how emerging technologies can enhance student engagement, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. Another central theme was equity and inclusion in STEM, highlighting the importance of ensuring that science education is accessible and engaging for students from all backgrounds.
Workshops on phenomena-based learning and inquiry-driven instruction provided practical approaches to deepen student understanding, aligning closely with ASTA’s mission to promote hands-on, real-world learning. These sessions reinforced the importance of fostering curiosity and critical thinking in science classrooms by encouraging students to explore and investigate scientific concepts through real-world applications.
Additionally, climate science and sustainability education was a major focus of the conference. Sessions underscored the urgency of equipping students with the knowledge and skills needed to address global challenges such as climate change and environmental sustainability. As Australia faces its own unique environmental challenges, Australian science educators have a pivotal role in preparing students to engage with these issues and develop solutions for the future.
Beyond the conference sessions, Paula and I had the opportunity to network with representatives from international science teacher associations, exchanging insights and exploring potential collaborations that could benefit ASTA members. These conversations highlighted the importance of global partnerships in advancing science education and ensuring that educators worldwide can share best practices and resources.
ASTA’s presence at the NSTA National Conference reaffirmed our commitment to excellence in science education. It was inspiring to see the innovative teaching approaches being developed worldwide and to consider how they can be adapted to support Australian science educators. With Paula preparing to step into the role of President, we look forward to implementing new ideas, strengthening international connections, and continuing to advocate for science teachers across Australia.
I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank Rosemary Anderson for her remarkable contributions as ASTA President. Serving as President Elect, President, and Past President—a volunteer role spanning four years—Rosemary has provided ASTA with invaluable knowledge, experience, and leadership. Her dedication and effort have strengthened ASTA’s ability to support science teachers across Australia. On behalf of ASTA, we extend our deepest gratitude for her service.
All the best for 2025.
Margaret Shepherd President, Australian Science Teachers Association (ASTA)
Science Safety Matters and we're here to help SCIENCE ASSIST
We care about the safety of school science educators, technicians and students.
Science Assist provides comprehensive support for science educators, offering expert advice, best-practice guidelines, and hands-on resources on lab safety, management and design. As Australia’s go-to service, we’re here to help you create a safe and effective learning environment.
Subscribe for exclusive access to up-to-date resources and personalised support.
Visit asta.edu.au/scienceassist to sign up for a 12–month subscription or contact us on (02) 9346 9600 or email scienceassist@asta.edu.au.
Register your school or create an individual account today for only $150 (ex GST).
'The support and knowledge provided by Science Assist is a godsend to all of us in labland overwhelmed with safety issues.'
Science Assist subscriber
Expert advice: Get access to high-quality teaching and learning resources curated by experts. Get personalised support by asking our panel of experts a question.
Curriculum support: Assistance with implementing the Australian Curriculum: Science.
Lab safety: Reliable guidance on all aspects of laboratory safety, management and design.
Hands-on activities: A vast range of safe, practical activities for an inquiry-based approach to science education.
From the Editor John Glistak
Welcome to the final issue of Teaching Science for 2024 the 70th year of this publication.
Three papers are featured in this issue.
For almost two decades Primary Connections, an initiative of the Australian Academy of Science, has aimed to enhance the capabilities of primary school teachers in developing their students’ knowledge, understanding, and skills in science through a guided inquiry approach.
In response to new and emerging needs Primary Connections and the Australian Academy of Science (Education) has had the opportunity to review the process of producing units of work for science teachers and the professional learning that was offered.
The result is the creation of a new curriculum framework – Launch, Inquire, Act. Helen Silvester and Jennifer Lawrence provide a detailed discussion on this new development.
The purpose of science education involves communicating knowledge and developing skills, products, and processes. Recent debates emphasise the relationships between science, technology, society, the environment, and socio-scientific inquiry. Science educators increasingly seek learning experiences where students collaborate on real-world problems, applying 21stcentury skills. Game-based learning offers one way to achieve this.
In their paper, Dr Laure M. Despland, Dr Saideepa Kumar and Professor Sharon Fraser report on a pilot study assessing game-based activities focused on sustainable water management in river catchments. It examined short-term changes in students’ understanding of water management and collaboration skills.
Teaching science in middle/upper primary is often associated with difficulties in getting students to communicate their understandings in a scientific, legitimate way. Preparing pre-service teachers to address this issue is particularly relevant now with the increased focus on writing in the new primary science and technology k-6 syllabus in New South Wales.
Anna-Vera Meidell Sigsgaard and Christine Preston describe a two-hour workshop held at the University of Sydney, School of Education with a group of science and technology specialisation students aimed at directing the pre-service teachers’ attention to the role language plays in different kinds of science education activities.
In the workshop the pre-service teachers were introduced to the concept of semantic gravity from Legitimation Code Theory as a way of seeing different levels of context dependency of science knowledge in different kinds of practical activities. This gave the students a powerful tool for seeing the importance of paying attention to and addressing the different kinds of language which students need for active participation in different types of science learning activities.
John
News from our State Associations
Scientific
Critical Thinking
Pilot
Program with University of California Berkeley (UC Berkeley)
The Science Teachers' Association of NSW has collaborated with UC Berkeley to deliver a new Scientific Thinking Pilot Program that is accessible to all secondary science teachers for free, with two sessions available in term one.
It is designed to equip students with the skills to think critically when using and evaluating information, and how to use these tools in the context of real, complex issues.
5th March, 7.30am, Session 1 – Evidence and Iteration: Skipton’s Water. Register for free here
11th March, 7.30am, Session 2 – Water Quality Challenge. Register for free here
Meet The Markers Virtual Series
The Science Teachers' Association of NSW (STANSW) is hosting its flagship event, Meet The Markers, online this term. Teachers can deepen their understanding of the HSC marking processes, gain insights and strategies to better prepare students for the exams that lie ahead. The 2025 Meet The Markers PD series will be held virtually, enabling access for teachers.
To submit a workshop abstract for one of the upcoming STANSW events, please fill in this form: https://stansw.asn.au/speakersubmission-form/
Submit your abstract today! Visit SEAACT.act.edu.au to find out more.
News from our State Associations
www.stawa.net/conferences/conasta
Registrations opening soon watch this space!
The 2025 SASTA Annual Conference theme, "Decoding Science," builds on the National Science Week focus by opening the door to diverse explorations in quantum science, genetics, environmental studies, and beyond. "Decoding Science" invites educators to uncover the tools and techniques that make scientific principles accessible, understandable, and engaging for students at all levels.
Program and registration now available https://www.sasta.asn.au/professional_ learning/sasta_annual_conference
Glenunga International High School Conference Theme: Decoding Science
News from our State Associations
New Position Paper on STEM Education in Victoria
STAV, in partnership with the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering (ATSE) and the Royal Society of Victoria (RSV), has released a position paper addressing the state of STEM education in Victoria. With declining student enrolments threatening future workforce needs, we propose a four-point plan to make STEM skills more attractive and accessible:
• Elevating STEM’s status in the curriculum with high-quality resources
• Supporting specialised professional development for teachers
• Expanding hands-on STEM learning and career exposure in schools
• Recognising and enhancing career pathways for outstanding STEM educators
STAV President, Alexandra Abela, emphasises the need for greater support for science teachers to inspire and equip students for real-world STEM applications.
We invite feedback from our members and encourage engagement with this important initiative. For media inquiries or to provide feedback, contact: president@stav.vic.edu.au.
Read more and access the full report here: https://shorturl.at/H7ZlI
Launch, Inquire, Act – A framework for teaching and learning science
Helen Silvester & Jennifer Lawrence
Australian Academy of Science
Introduction
For almost two decades Primary Connections, an initiative of the Australian Academy of Science, has aimed to enhance the capabilities of primary school teachers in developing their students’ knowledge, understanding, and skills in science through a guided inquiry approach.
Hackling and Prain (2005) identified the purpose of the Primary Connections program as being to improve learning outcomes in science and literacy through a sophisticated professional learning program supported with rich curriculum resources that will improve teachers’ knowledge of science and science teaching and thereby improve teachers’ confidence and competence for teaching science and the literacies needed for learning science. (p.1)
Supported by Australian Government funding, Primary Connections has made a positive impact on science education in schools, by teachers, and for students (Skamp, 2021).
Since Primary Connections’ inception, the Australian educational landscape has continued to evolve. The Australian curriculum has moved to a national framework, reflecting significant shifts in science education including a heightened emphasis on STEM disciplines (Education Council, 2015). While STEM education—defined as a "set of disciplines that work together to understand and model the universe, enabling individuals to solve problems" (Timms et al., 2018, p. 20)—is widely recognized
for its role in preparing a future-ready workforce capable of addressing real-world challenges, its implementation can be constrained by teachers instructing outside their areas of expertise (Hobbs & Porsch, 2021).
The educational landscape’s emphasis on connecting science to students’ lived experiences or real-world problems is further reflected in the development of the concept of science capital. Science capital provides a framework for understanding why certain social groups remain underrepresented in science and why many young people do not perceive science careers as attainable or relevant to them. As a form of cultural and social capital related to science (Archer et al., 2015), building students’ science capital has the potential to foster inclusion and equity within science cultures and practices (PISA 2024 Strategic Vision and Direction for Science, 2020). Building science capital also has a positive impact on teachers’ feelings of autonomy. King & Nomikou (2017) argued that pedagogical approaches aimed at enhancing students’ science capital contribute to the development of a teacher’s sense of “purpose, mastery, reflexivity and autonomy” (p.1) and thereby fostering their agency.
In response to new and emerging needs Primary Connections and the Australian Academy of Science (Education) had the opportunity to review the process of producing units of work for science teachers and the professional learning that was offered. The result is the creation of a new curriculum framework grounded by research, the Academy way.
Background and context
Primary Connections Stage 6 Evaluation report 2014-2018 (2019) assessed the outcome of the Primary Connections program and the support and professional learning that was provided to primary schools across Australia. This evaluation used a combination of qualitative methods (including focus groups, interviews and systematic literature review) and quantitative methods (including preand post-workshop surveys and Discrete Choice methodology) (Aubusson et al., 2019).
Professional learning workshops were offered to groups of pre-service teachers and in-service teachers as part of the Stage 6 Australian Government funding. 126 in-service and 171 preservice teachers completed surveys after attending workshops held in six states and territories across Australia. In addition, workshop participants were invited to forward a survey to their colleagues (snowball technique). This resulted in responses from an additional 189 in-service and 81 preservice teachers.
Participants in the interviews and focus groups incorporated members of the Primary Connections Steering Committee and Management Committee, including staff from the Australian Academy of Science and Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Multiple focus groups were selected from in-service teachers and pre-service teachers who had attended the professional learning workshops.
The evaluation identified that participants in the professional learning workshops showed “increased levels of interest, enjoyment, confidence, and comfort in teaching science” (Aubusson et al., 2019, p.4) and that their level of understanding of the 5E model and ability to use Primary Connections was improved. 99% of participants agreed that Primary Connections would help them to implement the Australian Curriculum: Science.
A substantial number of both in-service and pre-service teachers emphasised the importance of professional learning in understanding the significance of the 5E instructional model when utilising the units of work. Many participants expressed that they had not previously recognised the value of this model, underscoring the need for targeted training and support to enhance their pedagogical approaches and improve student engagement and learning outcomes.
so I can’t say exactly what it was and how they did it, but all of a sudden, I understood it. I never fully understood ‘elaborate’, I didn’t understand; I knew the order, I knew how to put things in, but I really didn’t understand the whole concept. And now I do. (Aubusson et al., 2019, p.89)
Both in-service and pre-service teachers expressed a preference for in-person rather than online workshops (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). However, this preference was accompanied by an acknowledgment of the associated costs, as all attending teachers recognised the financial implications for their schools. While the professional learning programs were provided at little or no direct cost to participants, schools incurred expenses related to hiring relief teachers, travel to various locations, and the disruption of regular classroom planning and activities. This highlighted the need for a balanced consideration of the benefits of face-to-face professional development against the logistical and financial challenges it poses for schools and teachers, and potentially hindered teachers utilising the Primary Connections resources from fully grasping the importance of the 5E model during implementation.
While Aubusson et al. (2019) recognised the success of Primary Connections as a set of hardcover resources, they identified a need for an online platform that “allows teachers to readily select, adapt and build their own program of work” (p.5). This was echoed by the interviewed science teaching experts who outlined a need for an emphasis on the key ideas of science while providing flexibility for the teacher and their students.
The AAS should also consider whether a quantum shift in Primary Connections is timely, or soon would be timely, to expand its impact radically rather than incrementally. (Aubusson et al., 2019, p.28).
Research aim
The Primary Connections team investigated the evolution of science teaching, curriculum development, and the changing needs of Australian primary teachers over the past two decades. The objective was to create a collection of resources that could be utilised by teachers with limited time or experience, while also offering more experienced educators the flexibility to adapt the materials to suit their individual teaching contexts.
In this context, the team examined a variety of contemporary teaching and instruction models with the aim of identifying a teaching and learning framework that would provide teachers with the flexibility to modify for individual contexts and facilitate the generation of new resources to support Australian teachers in both the primary and secondary sectors.
Teaching models and frameworks
1. BSCS 5E Instructional Model
The 5E instructional model has been the key framework for Primary Connections’ teaching and learning resources since it was first published in 2005. Based on the work of Rodger Bybee (Bybee & Landes, 1990) and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), the model was designed to respond to innovations in science and technology and the unique demands placed on science education. The 5E model proposes the development of conceptual understanding across five phases—Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate—each with a specific purpose and characterised by specific teacher and student actions and responses.
Over time variants have developed, including the 3E model (Explore, Explain, and Elaborate) and the 7E model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate, Elicit, and Extend) (Polanin et al., 2023). Across 61 studies identified by Polanin et al. (2023), the 5E model and its variants were found to have an average effect size of 0.87 in student science achievement and 0.24 effect size in student motivation.
Aubusson et al. (2019, p.96) identified several teacher misinterpretations surrounding the implementation of the 5E model, including: that the Engage phase could not be more than one lesson; that units needed to be taught as a whole; that units were not adaptable; and general misunderstandings about the purpose behind the structure of the 5E model itself. This led to barriers in teachers adapting existing resources for their own purposes or writing their own units to suit the needs and interest of their students and local contexts. Aubusson reached the conclusion that the 5E model was able to be implemented more effectively after teachers had participated in professional learning workshops in some capacity.
Inquiry cycle stage Design principle
Engage Capture students’ interest and spark curiosity Elicit students’ prior understanding Set learning in a meaningful context
Explore Provide a common concrete learning experience Active exploration including observation, questioning and investigations
Explain Students describe their experiences and pose questions about the concepts they have been exploring Share explanations and clarification of alternative conceptions
Elaborate Students apply their new understanding of concepts Develop deeper and broader skills and understanding May develop products or share information
Evaluate Summative assessment or self/peer assessment of understanding
Table 1 The 5E instructional model
Table 2 The BSCE Anchored Inquiry Learning Model (Anchored Inquiry Learning: The next innovation in BSCS’s instructional design – BSCS science learning, 2024).
Inquiry cycle stage Design principle
Anchor lesson Students are introduced to a puzzling phenomenon or problem and motivate further investigation
Investigate lesson Students figure out key science ideas and crosscutting concepts through engagement with the science and engineering practices
Synthesize lesson Students build consensus and revise their explanatory model or solution to a problem
Gap Analysis lesson Students re-engage with the anchoring phenomenon or problem by considering limitations in their understanding, motivating the need for more information and evidence
Culminating task Students apply their understanding to plan for or carry out actions towards a solution to the initial puzzling phenomenon or problem
2. BSCS Anchored Inquiry Learning
BSCS have themselves identified the need for a more flexible, updated approach to teaching and learning in science (Anchored Inquiry Learning: The next innovation in BSCS’s instructional design – BSCS science learning, 2024). Their new instructional model, Anchored Inquiry Learning, builds on the strong foundations of the 5E model whilst drawing on contemporary research including the Next Generation Science Standards and OpenSciEd ‘storylines’ model approaches (explored further below). The Anchored Inquiry Learning approach features a series of inquiry cycles, composed of different lesson types, bookended by anchoring and culminating tasks. Investigating, figuring out key science ideas, and consensus building are all key features of the model.
Inquiry cycle stage Design principle
Focus Using real-world situations to frame the content and engage learners
Explore Active process of gathering information or completing investigations
Investigate An investigation of the impacts of a crisis and the way it affects people and communities
Reflect An opportunity for students to reflect on their learning, and consolidate their findings
Share A chance for students to share their understanding of the content and skills in the real-world context
3. IB Primary Years Programme
The International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Programme (PYP) is an inquiry-based, transdisciplinary framework used by schools in 127 countries including Australia. The aim of the program is to “develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people” (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2007, p.2). Their inquiry approach “supports students’ struggle to gain understanding of the world and to learn to function comfortably within it, to move from not knowing to knowing, to identify what is real and what is not real” (p.7). The goal is to link a student’s learning to the world of the student rather than be contrived and imposed by the teacher. The student is then encouraged to take “thoughtful and appropriate action” as a result of their learning (p.25). While some PYP schools have adopted the Kath Murdoch Inquiry Cycle as the basis for their inquiry learning process (Cody, 2020), the only example of an inquiry cycle that is presented by the PYP Resources is an example provided for learning in ‘times of a crisis’ (Using the Inquiry Approach to Teach during Crisis, n.d.).
A comparison of the NAP-SL test results in schools using the PYP and those not using the PYP produced a Cohen’s Effect Size of 0.24 (Campbell, 2014). The significant variation in results between similar PYP schools in this study suggested that there were other variables that could have affected the results, including teacher training, school resources, and community involvement. Similar to Aubusson’s commentary on the 5E model, Campbell (2014) suggested that the PYP’s success may be contingent upon the reliability of its implementation and the contextual factors surrounding each educational setting.
Table
Inquiry cycle stage Design principle
Tuning in
Finding out
Sorting out
Going further
Making conclusions
Taking action
4. OpenSciEd
What do learners already know. What questions do they have?
Active process of gathering information or completing investigations
Organising and processing information, identify patterns and develop understanding
Further investigations and research to address any remaining questions
An opportunity for students to reflect on their learning, and consolidate their findings
A chance for students to apply and share their understanding of the content and skills in the real-world context
OpenSciEd is a science program established in the United States of America with the intention to produce resources that support the Next Generation Science Standards. The collaboration between science researchers and educators uses a ‘storyline’ model that links the science concepts with phenomena and problems experienced by students and their teachers (Reiser et al., 2021). This model uses questions and phenomena to drive the building of a storyline that progressively develops students’ knowledge of science content and practice. Individual science processes (such as photosynthesis) are intentionally reframed as a noticing (plants become bigger...I wonder where the extra mass comes from). To support the ‘storyline’ model, OpenSciEd has developed the ‘Anchoring phenomenon routine’ designed to support students to “uncover what needs to be figured out” (Reiser et al., 2021, p.812). These routines are designed to illustrate to students where they are located in their learning or problem-solving. While student voice is encouraged as they contextualise examples and construct scientific ideas, the active participation of the teacher ensures that student learning will continue along the direction set by the curriculum. Reiser et al. (2021) recognise that teachers need to anticipate and prepare where students will go next in their learning, and that this will place new demands on the teachers’ time.
Inquiry cycle routines Design principle
Anchoring phenomenon
Provide motivation
Elicit student questions
Connect with student prior experiences
Navigating
Problematizing
Putting the pieces together
Link learning
Connect to original anchoring phenomenon and original questions
Identify any gaps in current explanations that need to be explored
Develop a consensus on current ideas and understanding
Table 5 Anchoring phenomena approach (Reiser et al., 2021)
5. Stanford design school’s STEM cycle
In 2015, the National STEM School Education Strategy 2016-2026 was endorsed by the Australian Education Ministers (Clarke, 2024). This has resulted in different ‘flavours’ of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education (Timms et al., 2018). These include:
1. a variation of the usual science content where students complete an experiment with a data or maths focus.
2. the full integration of two or more of the individual disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics together with one process of Creating Digital Solutions (Design and Technologies) or Science Inquiry (VCAA, n.d.).
3. ‘STEM with attitude’ (Timms et al., 2018) that places an emphasis on the cross curricula capabilities.
An example of the design thinking process used by schools is the instructional scaffold developed by Stanford’s d.school (Stanford’s d.school, 2007). This process model was designed to allow teachers to guide students’ learning experiences, boost creativity and promote collaboration and engagement. The challenge identified by Zhou et al. (2022) was that when the design process was given precedence, pedagogical content knowledge was often overshadowed.
Design cycle mode Design principle
Empathise
Define
Provide motivation
Engage with people/community that is experiencing a problem
Consider the beliefs and values of the people affected
Synthesis the research on the problem into a single statement Reframe the problem
Ideate Using creative thinking to consider the people and the problem that needs to be solved.
Ideation/mind mapping/sketching
Prototype
Test
Try different types of materials and building techniques
Construction of potential ideas
Refine the problem and potential solution
Solicit feedback
Refine the problem and potential solution
Iteration of prototype and retest
Table 6 Stanford design school STEM cycle (Stanford’s d.school, 2007)
Comparison of frameworks and models
A direct comparison of each of the identified learning frameworks and models revealed that, while each had its own advantages and disadvantages, there were also key similarities that underscored effective pedagogical practices. Notably, all the examined frameworks commenced with a Launch phase, which was designed to engage students and provide both motivation and context for their learning (Bybee, 2014, Silitonga & Tangkin, 2023, Stanford’s d.school, 2007, Reiser et al., 2021). This initial phase was intended to capture students’ interest and encourage deeper inquiry. It often centred on a real-world phenomenon or problems that resonated with students and their communities. In particular, the Stanford STEM model’s emphasis on ‘Empathise’ actively encouraged students to connect with their community by interviewing individuals who might be directly affected by the problem being addressed. This approach not only fostered a sense of social responsibility but also helped students appreciate the complexities of realworld issues (PISA 2025 Science Framework, 2023). Similarly, the initial phase in the 5E model, the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme (PYP) and OpenSciEd were all designed to elicit students’ pre-existing knowledge about the
topic. Students were encouraged to express their thoughts and questions, creating a collaborative classroom environment where ideas could be freely exchanged. This elicitation allowed teachers to gauge student understanding and alternative conceptions, informing subsequent learning opportunities. The initial Launch phase not only motivated students but also set a collaborative tone for the rest of the inquiry process, illustrating the importance of engaging students from the very beginning of their learning journey.
The cyclic nature of inquiry learning was reflected in the second identified phase that followed the Launch phase across each of the examined models. The Inquiry phase began with students exploring or discovering new information through various investigative methods, such as observations, experiments or investigation activities. These involved students using scientific inquiry practices to engage actively with the content as they posed questions, planned investigations, organised and processed data, and sought answers.
In each examined model, an integration process that involved explanation and consensus-building followed the investigation. Reflective processes were used, where students were encouraged to ‘explain’ and ‘elaborate’ on their ideas (5E model), ‘go further’ into the subject matter (Kath Murdoch
cycle), ‘generalise science ideas’ (Anchored phenomena approach), ‘put pieces together’ (OpenSciEd), or ‘refine the problem’ (Stanford STEM). This collaborative aspect of the Inquiry phase allowed students to articulate their findings, share perspectives, and construct a collective understanding of the scientific concepts at hand (Reiser et al., 2012).
By encouraging students to engage in iterative reflection and refinement, each Inquiry phase provided opportunities for students to reassess their learning and make connections to broader scientific principles.
The final phase identified in the educational frameworks examined involved students utilising their newly acquired understanding and skills to take meaningful action, which allowed students to reinforce their learning and foster a sense of agency (Silitonga & Tangkin, 2023). This Act phase often served as a summative task, enabling students to reconnect with the original personal and community context established during the Launch phase. By revisiting this context, students could reflect on their learning journey and recognise the relevance of the scientific concepts they had explored. This phase emphasised the
application of knowledge, allowing students to synthesise their insights and make their learning visible. Such tasks not only required students to demonstrate their understanding of scientific principles but also encouraged creativity and critical thinking as they made decisions about how to represent their knowledge. This process also facilitated collaboration among peers, as students often worked together to brainstorm ideas and provide feedback, thereby enhancing their interpersonal skills.
The Act phase also provided an opportunity for students to engage in authentic scientific practices, simulating the work of professionals in the field. By designing prototypes, models, or presentations, students had the opportunity to communicate their findings clearly and effectively to a variety of audiences. This allowed them to solidify their grasp of the content but also build confidence in their abilities to articulate complex ideas. Ultimately, the Act phase played a crucial role in promoting a deeper understanding of science, encouraging students to see themselves as active participants in the scientific process, and reinforcing the idea that learning extends beyond the classroom into real-world applications.
Table 7 The commonalities between the learning models
The LIA Framework
The identification of the three phases—Launch, Inquire, Act—in all of the curriculum models and frameworks examined correlates with the aims of the Australian Curriculum. It also allows the three strands of Science Understanding, Science as a Human Endeavour and Science Inquiry to be intertwined into a cohesive story. The Launch phase and Act phase align with the concept of Science as a Human Endeavor, where students directly engage with the use and influence of science. By focusing on real-world phenomena or problems that resonate with students and their communities, these phases highlight the relevance of science in everyday life and emphasises its collaborative and social dimensions. This approach not only captures students’ interest and fosters curiosity about the dynamic world around them, but also encourages them to see the nature of science as a collective pursuit developed by human experiences and cultural contexts. By considering the ethical, environmental, social, and economic implications of their decisions, students become active participants in science, ready to take action in their communities.
Although the three phases of the curriculum framework—Launch, Inquire, and Act—provide the foundation for curriculum planning, the Primary Connections team recognised that to deliver a consistent approach in the resources and to support teachers in designing their own teaching
sequences, each phase needed to integrate a series of research-backed routines. These routines are designed to support educators in taking ownership of the curriculum development process, guiding them to tailor content to meet the specific needs and interests of their students. The combination of phases and routines was needed to support educators in innovating their teaching practices, adapting resources to better align with their students’ backgrounds and learning styles, and ultimately promoting a more responsive and dynamic science education environment.
While the order of the routines in the Inquiry cycle needs to be maintained (Question, then Investigate, then Integrate) to allow students to develop an emergent understanding of the science content in a social environment (Tytler & White, 2022), the routines of the Launch phase and Act phase can be rearranged to suit the purpose of the teaching sequence. Each routine has a distinct purpose (Table 8).
Figure 1 The LIA Framework
Figure 2 The routines in each phase of the LIA Framework
Table 8 The phases and routines of the LIA Framework
Phase Routine Purpose
Launch Experience and empathise
Anchor
Elicit
Connect
Inquire Question
Investigate
Integrate
Act
Anchor
Connect
Design
Communicate
Promote equity and develop a common language and understanding
Establish connections to the core concept and key ideas of science
Identify students’ prior understandings to be addressed during Inquiry cycles
Connect with students’ interests and promote relevance of the science in the community (build science capital)
Encourage and develop curiosity in the learning experience
Explore science content and develop skills in scientific inquiry
Develop representations to make learning visible and receive formative feedback
Establish connections to the core concept and key ideas of science
Connect with students’ interests and promote relevance of the science in the community (build science capital)
Develop student autonomy and sense of agency in using science in their world
Cultivate science communication skills that enable effective interaction with diverse audiences for a variety of purposes.
A core element of the LIA framework is the recognition that all students bring diverse forms of knowledge and experience, which can significantly influence their engagement with science content. By prioritising equity, exploring before integrating ideas, student agency, and teacher autonomy, the routines help bridge gaps in access and prior knowledge, creating inclusive classrooms where all students can contribute and thrive.
1.Experience equity
All students enter a classroom with a variety of pre-existing science capital that can affect their capacity to engage with the content being learned. The cultivation of a common experience (such as the 'Experience and empathise' routine in the Launch phase) and the development of a shared language promotes equity among students, particularly in a field where access to resources and prior knowledge can vary significantly. When students start with a shared experience, it levels the playing field, allowing all learners to contribute their unique perspectives and insights. This collective engagement fosters a sense of belonging and encourages active participation. Additionally, a common scientific vocabulary facilitates clearer communication and understanding (Ainscow, 2020), enabling students to express their ideas and questions without fear of judgment. Such practices not only empower students from diverse backgrounds but also prepare them to collaborate effectively in future scientific endeavours, ultimately advancing equity in the study of science.
2. Connect to develop student agency
...education needs to do better in helping students develop a sense of self-efficacy, agency and responsibility (OECD, 2022).
Science capital plays a crucial role in promoting student agency within the framework of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). A student’s science capital emphasises the need to make a connection between the student’s backgrounds and their capacity to engage meaningfully with science content. When students are encouraged to draw upon their science capital (such as through the Connect routines in the Launch phase and Act phase) they are more likely to see themselves as capable participants in scientific inquiry. The PISA 2025 Science Framework (2023) underscores the importance of student agency in learning, highlighting that empowered students take ownership of their educational journeys, make informed decisions, and engage in critical thinking. By fostering an environment where diverse forms of science capital are recognised, valued and connected with the classroom, educators can enhance students’ confidence and motivation, ultimately leading to greater academic success (Cooper & Berry, 2020) and increased interest in STEM fields (Godec et al., 2017). The promotion of science capital also aligns with the PISA 2025 Science Framework (2023) goals of equipping students with the competencies necessary for active citizenship and lifelong learning, thereby contributing to a more equitable and engaged society.
3. Investigate before integrate
When students investigate ideas on their own, they develop a personal connection to the material, making it more meaningful and relevant. This exploration allows them to formulate questions and hypotheses, which can deepen their understanding. This approach supports students to identify and confront any alternative conceptions they may have (Brown, 2020). By grappling with concepts firsthand, and attempting to understand what they are experiencing, students are more likely to recognise gaps in their understanding, leading to a more robust grasp of the science content in a collaborative environment. This social aspect of learning also creates a supportive classroom environment where students feel valued and empowered to express their thoughts (Ainscow, 2020).
The development of a common language among students is integral to the process of social learning, as it facilitates communication, collaboration, and the construction of shared understanding (Ainscow, 2020). In educational settings, when students engage in collaborative activities, they are prompted to articulate their thoughts and negotiate meanings, which fosters a collective discourse that enhances learning outcomes. This shared vocabulary enables students to express complex ideas and engage in constructive dialogue that shows and shapes their thinking (Tytler & White, 2022), allowing them to bridge differences in perspective and reach consensus on scientific concepts or problemsolving strategies.
4. Teacher agency—adopt, adapt and design
As identified by Aubusson et al. (2019), teacher agency in the science classroom has been a factor in the uptake and continued use of Primary Connections resources over the past two decades. Cong-Lem (2021, p.725) identified that “teachers exercise their professional agency in highly individualised ways” and this was reflected in the Stage 6 Evaluation report, where teachers ‘cherrypicked’ some aspects of the teaching sequences without understanding how it would affect the deliberate design of the 5E model. This indicated a need for a curriculum framework that provided teachers with the ability to adopt a teaching sequence in its entirety or adapt the sequence so that it better suited their classroom context.
Adaptation is facilitated through the use of the LIA Framework to fit the specific context of a school. Where an individual classroom has unique contexts available, such as a beachside or national park location, the Connect routine in both the Launch phase and Act phase encourages teachers to use the specific context to foster student engagement and enhance the relevance of the students’ learning experiences. Additionally, the flexibility inherent in successive Inquiry cycles within the framework allows teachers to incorporate new cycles of inquiry, enabling them to tailor lessons to the specific needs and preferences of their students. This adaptability supports teachers in creating a dynamic and responsive learning environment, while contributing to the development of a teacher’s sense of professional agency (King and Nomikou, 2017). This responsiveness not only enhances student engagement but also promotes equity, as it allows teachers to differentiate instruction so that it meets diverse learner needs.
Conclusion
The Australian Academy of Science seeks to build on the legacy of Primary Connections, which has long supported science education, with the continual evolution of its framework in response to emerging educational needs and scientific advancements. The transition from the established 5E model to the innovative Launch, Inquire, Act (LIA) Framework reflects a commitment to enhancing learning outcomes and fostering an integrated approach to science teaching. This evolution not only empowers teachers to adopt, adapt, or design teaching sequences that align with contemporary scientific developments and local relevance but also supports their professional growth in science knowledge and pedagogy. By connecting current research on science education, science identity, and science capital, the LIA framework is designed to be applicable across both primary and secondary school contexts, creating a cohesive educational experience that nurtures students’ understanding of science and its importance in their lives. The Australian Academy of Science’s ongoing dedication to these principles aims to inspire a dynamic and engaging science education that cultivates curiosity and inquiry, ultimately preparing students for the challenges of the future and fostering a lifelong passion for science.
About the Authors
Helen Silvester has been an educator for over 30 years, and currently is the Learning Area Manager (Science) at the Australian Academy of Science (Education) which is responsible for Primary Connections and the new Science Connections.
Jennifer Lawrence draws on more than fifteen years’ experience as a primary teacher, and over six years’ experience developing and facilitating both online and face-to-face professional learning at Australian Academy of Science Education.
References
Anchored Inquiry Learning: The Next Innovation in BSCS’s Instructional Design - BSCS Science Learning. (2024, September 23). BSCS Science Learning. https://bscs.org/about/anchored-inquirylearning/
Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic journal of studies in educational policy, 6(1), 7-16.
Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of research in science teaching, 52(7), 922-948.
Aubusson, P., Skamp, K. R., Burke, P. F., PressickKilborn, K., Ng, W., Palmer, T-A., Goodall, A., and Fergusson, J. (2019). Primary Connections: Linking science with literacy Stage 6 research evaluation final report. Prepared for Steering Committee of Primary Connections, Australian Academy of Science.
Auernhammer, J., & Roth, B. (2021). The origin and evolution of Stanford University’s design thinking: From product design to design thinking in innovation management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(6), 623-644.
Brown, P. (2020). Instructional sequence matters, grades 3-5: explore before explain. National Science Teaching Association.
Bores-García, D., González-Calvo, G., Barba-Martín, R. A., García-Monge, A., & Hortigüela-Alcalá, D. (2023). International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme: a systematic review. Journal of Research in International Education, 22(2), 149163. https://doi.org/10.1177/14752409231188215
Bybee, R. W., & Landes, N. M. (1990). Science for life & living: An elementary school science program from biological sciences curriculum study. The American Biology Teacher, 52(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/4449042
Campbell, C. (2014). Science literacy in the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme (PYP): NAP-SL outcomes. Clarke, M. (2024). National STEM School Education Strategy - Department of Education, Australian Government. Department of Education. https:// www.education.gov.au/australian-curriculum/ resources/national-stem-school-educationstrategy
Cong-Lem, N. (2021). Teacher agency: A systematic review of international literature. Issues in Educational Research, 31(3), 718-738.
Cody, J. (2020). Primary Years Programme (PYP): The Inquiry Learning Cycle. Blog. siliconvalleyinternational.org. https://blog. siliconvalleyinternational.org/the-inquirylearning-cycle
Cooper, G., & Berry, A. (2020). Demographic predictors of senior secondary participation in biology, physics, chemistry and earth/space sciences: students’ access to cultural, social and science capital. International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 151-166.
Duran, E., Duran, L., Haney, J., & Scheuermann, A. (2011). A learning cycle for all students. The Science Teacher, 78(3), 56.
Education Council. (2015). National STEM School Education Strategy 2016-2026: A comprehensive plan for science, technology, engineering and mathematics education in Australia https:// www.education.gov.au/australian-curriculum/ resources/national-stem-school-educationstrategy
Godec, S., King, H., & Archer, L. (2017). The Science Capital Teaching Approach: engaging students with science, promoting social justice - UCL Discovery. Ucl.ac.uk https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/ eprint/10080166/1/the-science-capital-teachingapproach-pack-for-teachers.pdf
Hackling, M., & Prain, R. (2005). Primary Connections, Stage 2 Trial: Research report
Hobbs, L., & Porsch, R. (2021). Teaching out-offield: challenges for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 601–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1985280
International Baccalaureate Organization, (2007) Primary Years Programme, Making the PYP happen: A curriculum framework for international primary education
Joswick, C., & Hulings, M. (2023). A Systematic Review of BSCS 5E Instructional Model Evidence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10357-y
King, H., & Nomikou, E. (2017). Fostering critical teacher agency: the impact of a science capital pedagogical approach. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 26(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/146 81366.2017.1353539
OECD (2022), Are Students Ready to Take on Environmental Challenges?, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8abe655c-en.
PISA 2024 Strategic Vision and Direction for Science. (2020). https://www.oecd.org/pisa/ publications/PISA-2024-Science-Strategic-VisionProposal.pdf pg 12
Polanin, J. R., Taylor, J. A., Steingut, R., & Austin, M. (2023). The 5E instructional model: An evidence gap map analysis brief. American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/ files/2023-10/5E-EGM-Brief-Oct-2023.pdf
Reiser, B. J., Berland, L. K., & Kenyon, L. (2012). Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. Science Teacher, 79(4).
Reiser, B. J., Novak, M., McGill, T. A. W., & Penuel, W. A. (2021). Storyline units: An instructional model to support coherence from the students’ perspective. Journal of Science Teacher Learning, 32(7), 805-829. https://doi.org/10.1080/104656 0X.2021.1884784
Silitonga, B. N., & Tangkin, W. (2023). Science teaching and learning through kath murdoch’s inquiry cycle: a case study on preservice primary teachers. Polyglot: Jurnal Ilmiah, 19(2), 158-175.
Skamp, K. R. (2012). Teaching primary science: trial-teacher feedback on the implementation of Primary Connections and the 5E model.
Timms, M., Moyle, K., Weldon, P. & Mitchell, P. (2018). Challenges in STEM learning in Australian schools. Policy Insights Issue 7. Camberwell, VIC: ACER.
Tytler, R., & White, P. J. (2022). Responsible Research, Innovation, and Socioscientific Inquiry Approaches in a European Teacher Education Project. In Innovative Approaches to Socioscientific Issues and Sustainability Education: Linking Research to Practice (pp. 101-118). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Using the inquiry approach to teach during crisis. (n.d.). International Baccalaureate®. https:// www.ibo.org/crisis-support-resources/learning/ learning-and-teaching-using-an-inquiryapproach-in-times-of-crisis/
Zhou, D., Gomez, R., Wright, N., Rittenbruch, M., & Davis, J. (2022). A design-led conceptual framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: the Australian context. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 383-411.
Using a place-based catchment water game to teach concepts and skills for sustainable water management
Dr Laure M. Despland, Dr Saideepa Kumar and Professor Sharon Fraser
Abstract
The purpose of science education involves communicating knowledge and developing skills, products, and processes. Recent debates emphasise the relationships between science, technology, society, the environment, and socioscientific inquiry. Science educators increasingly seek learning experiences where students collaborate on real-world problems, applying 21st-century skills. Gamebased learning offers one way to achieve this. This paper reports on a pilot study assessing game-based activities focused on sustainable water management in river catchments. It examined short-term changes in students’ understanding of water management and collaboration skills. The research involved students from grades 7, 10, and university, along with their teachers. Findings from student and teacher surveys show that the game helps students learn concepts and skills for addressing sustainable water management and provides practice in systems thinking. Teachers noted the game promotes teamwork, negotiation, and reflection on choices, and while they suggested improvements (e.g., digitalisation), they were positive about future use.
Keywords: Socio-scientific inquiry, 21st Century skills, Real-world problem solving, Game-based learning
Introduction
The purpose of science education has been the focus of debate for many years (e.g., Hodson, 2009). While in the past, its purpose was summarised as “…concerned exclusively with reliability that can be attributed to factual (is) statements” (Hall, 1999, p. 15), more recent science education theorists have declared it inadequate, as it prioritises education about products and skills (Bencze et al., 2020) over and above social justice and ecological sustainability. To prepare students for dealing with complex real-world challenges, science educators are increasingly seeking to create learning experiences in which students collaborate on socially relevant, personally meaningful, real-world problems that involve the deliberate use of evidence-based reasoning to engage in dialogue and discussion about these problems (Sadler et al., 2007, Zeidler & Nichols, 2009). Making such learning experiences interactive and engaging could help students become motivated to address societal problems. Thus, the use of games in learning has the potential to address many of these needs, especially when the games are designed around personally meaningful issues (Squire et al., 2007).
This paper presents a research study on the use of a game to develop scientific literacy about water catchments and the complexity of managing water sustainably in a local river catchment. It begins with a brief overview of the literature on the visions for science education and game-based learning, before describing the catchment game, its implementation and its evaluation.
Visions for Science Education
Roberts (2007) categorised Hall’s perspectives as a vision for science education (Vision I) which comprises a “general familiarity and fluency within the discipline, based on mastering a sample of the language, products, processes, and traditions of science itself” (p. 546). He argued that such a vision is in constant competition with a second vision, Vision II, which acknowledges that science plays a role in human affairs, providing the “relevant contexts in society and matters of students’ everyday life” (Haglund & Hulten, 2017, p. 325).
Vision II encourages the provision of educational experiences which encompass socio-scientific issues (SSI), which expose students to the
relationships between science, technology, societies and the environment, and to make judgements about their relative merits (Bencze et al., 2020; Morin et al., 2017). In the early years of the 21st century, understandings of the purpose of science education evolved to focus more on the capabilities schools should be developing in students; specifically, educating them to be scientifically literate. A scientifically literate person would be able to understand the impacts of science on everyday life, reflect critically on scientific information, engage confidently in discussions involving science and take informed personal decisions about things that involve science, such as health, diet, energy use (Roberts & Bybee, 2014).
To develop such a scientifically literate person it can be assumed that both a level of scientific knowledge and skills as articulated in Vision I, is essential, as well as the ability to understand science-in-context and recognise the potential intersecting influences of politics, economics, culture, gender, the features of Vision II (Hodson, 2010). Contexts provide relevance and enable abstract ideas to become more concrete as they exist within students’ everyday worlds. Further, if the chosen context for the inquiry is situated within students’ own local area, this contributes to personalising the learning of science (Prain et al., 2017).
A learning environment in which students engage collaboratively in SSI is ideal for preparing them for a life of complexity in the information and communications technologies age (Stauffer, 2022) that is the 21st century. Such learning requires students to construct and validate knowledge (Schleicher, 2018), be creative and display perseverance as they engage in problem-solving (Amadi, 2021) and scientific reasoning while reflecting upon and negotiating a resolution to the SSI (Zeidler et al., 2019). Students would also need systems thinking skills, that is, the ability to analyse how things interact to produce a system’s behaviour as a whole while also appreciating multiple perspectives of the system or its problems (Meadows, 2008). These skills are often referred to as 21st Century Skills. Not only do students have to learn differently to develop the critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills necessary to navigate the complexities of the 21st century but teaching practices and classroom processes also need to undergo a concomitant shift to support these demands. Indeed, at this time when humans continue to significantly impact Earth’s systems
(IPCC, 2021), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has called for young learners to develop ‘Agency in the Anthropocen’ (White et al., 2023). Such agency is evident in their ability to “make informed decisions to act based on evaluation of diverse sources of evidence” (p.16) in order to apply creative and systems thinking.
To be an effective teacher of science today, Trilling and Fadel (2009) identified the need for teachers to evolve their practices just as Vision II desires, from teacher-directed/predominantly direct instruction to student-centred and interactive exchange with and among students. To develop their agency, students are given voice and choice about the ways in which they learn and how they demonstrate their learning. Teaching content remains important; however, the content is learnt/ made meaningful and accessible through the problem-solving processes undertaken during SSI. They emphasised that as educators our focus on learning at school must shift to ensuring that students are equipped to learn throughout life.
The potential of game-based learning
One emergent strategy is the use of game-based learning within authentic contexts, particularly SSI, to enhance student engagement, critical thinking, and problem-solving. While using play and games in education isn’t new, the rise of digital technologies has made it a more prominent tool for fostering skills like scientific literacy and collaboration in formal educational settings (Psotka, 2013). Game-based learning refers to the use of games to enable learning (Plass et al., 2015). The game could be a pre-existing one that has been repurposed for learning, or a new game designed specifically for learning. Gamebased learning is distinct from gamification, which involves the use of game elements such as incentives or rewards, as an added feature of a learning activity. A common rationale for using educational games is their motivational power, which can come from immediate formative feedback through rewards and successes, competition, immersive experience, or the experience of overcoming a challenge (Gee, 2003, Plass et al., 2015).
Play enables students to transcend their immediate reality by imagining different possibilities or playing different roles (Plass et al., 2015). In a simulation game, players develop
meta-understandings of the model underlying the game, how different elements of the game environment connect and interact to produce outcomes; in the process, they acquire systems thinking skills (DeVane et al., 2010). Lower consequences of failure encourage students to take risks, explore innovative solutions and acquire a deeper understanding of concepts (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010; Kapur, 2015). These features of games enable students to be active producers of knowledge and not just consumers (Gee, 2003). Games can also foster prosocial skills through game communities, teamwork and collaboration (Hromek & Roffey, 2009). These skills can be highly effective for SSI, especially when games are designed around real-world social challenges. In her book, ‘Reality is broken’, Jane McGonigal (2015) argued that games provide a means for people to cope with the feeling of helplessness against today’s social challenges, develop a sense of agency and become optimistic about the outcomes of their actions.
Despite the acknowledged benefits of game-based learning, its adoption in formal education has been limited due to several reasons. Teachers have cited the structure of curricula, insufficient time for immersive game experiences, lack of teacher knowledge about gaming, the crossdisciplinary nature of most games, limited access to technologies, and teacher workloads as barriers (De Freitas, 2018). Often, the educational material of games does not align with the objectives of the curriculum, and significant changes are required in pedagogical approaches for better integration of games (Royle & Colfer, 2010).
Using games to teach sustainable water management
Sustainable water management in river catchments is a challenging task, due to the presence of diverse values and interests in water. People find it difficult to communicate or collaborate when there are competing interests at stake. When the varied spatial and temporal connections in a catchment are not recognised, conversations become polarised around entrenched positions and changes quickly become controversial (Saravanan et al. 2009). This is a significant problem for water management in Australia and elsewhere. With a changing climate and increasing demands for water, there is a need for proactive approaches to deal with this
challenge (Fenemor et al., 2011). Sustainability itself, is an important yet ill-defined concept that can be challenging for students to grasp. The interconnectedness of values in a river catchment requires systems thinking, which is equally challenging to teach. Educators have argued that sustainability education must include not just knowledge of sciences and technologies, but also include contextual socio-cultural and behavioural knowledge, that is, “the how” of sustainability (DuPuis and Ball, 2013).
A game that embodies these types of knowledges could provide students an opportunity to learn by playing. Anchoring the game and associated learning activities in a local catchment, familiar to the participants, was considered a way to enhance learning by connecting abstract concepts to a relatable context. Along with improving knowledge, we were curious if a game could help young people develop the social and emotional skills to lead and/or engage in difficult conversations about climate change, trade-off decisions and social changes. Some of these claims cannot be tested in a single learning activity or within the classroom, therefore, we designed a pilot study to examine what knowledge, and skills are learned using such a game and if teachers would find it useful as a learning activity.
Aims
This paper seeks to answer the following research questions:
• How does game-based learning help students to learn scientific concepts relating to water catchments and develop their 21st century skills?
• According to participating teachers, what were the strengths and weaknesses in using a socio-scientific issues (SSI) game to teach science concepts?
In order to answer the research questions, the pilot study sought to assess the learning outcomes of game-based activities focussed on sustainable management of water resources in river catchments (an SSI). The specific aim of this pilot study was to identify students’ immediate or short-term changes in understanding of river catchments and the development of collaboration and negotiation skills from playing a catchment game as a learning activity. Findings from this pilot study will be used to develop a robust online game that can be scaled out to Australian schools and universities.
Research Design
Implementing the Catchment Game
We modelled a semi-digital game (hereafter referred to as the Catchment Game), on a decommissioned online digital game developed for ABC Science (Australia), the ‘Catchment Detox’, that is loosely modelled on the catchment of a local river, in this case, the Derwent River in southern Tasmania. The purpose of the Catchment Game is to introduce students to the interconnectedness of water and land in river catchments, and the challenges involved in negotiating trade-offs between different values of water. For grades 7 to 10 students, these goals are aligned with the Australian Curriculum (version 9) learning areas of Science, Geography, Design & Technologies, and Digital technologies. Students also develop insight into sustainability, critical and creative thinking, and ethical understanding. For university students, these goals are to analyse concepts of environmental, social and economic sustainability and to develop skills in multi-disciplinary decision making.
The research was undertaken with students in grades 7 and 10 at a Tasmanian school, undergraduate students enrolled in the Bachelor of Agricultural Science and Bachelor of Natural Environments and Conservation at the University in Tasmania, and their teachers who implemented the Catchment Game in their classrooms. Students work in small teams and the game is played in rounds of 15 to 20 minutes each, with each round representing a single year with a set climate scenario (very wet/wet/average/dry/very dry).
The learning activity is designed to run over two lessons (lesson 1: introduce the game, complete pre-game survey, briefly discuss land and water user in river catchments; lesson 2: run the game, complete post-game survey, discuss learnings from the game) – surveys: Supporting Information 1A and 1B. The teacher walks around checking progress, suggesting tips and encouraging participation by all team members.
Each team is given a conceptual map of the Derwent River printed on A0 paper, and a set of cards representing different land uses (one card = one unit equivalent of each land use) (Figure 1). Land uses include a range of agricultural crops, livestock enterprises, aquaculture, hydropower, manufacturing, recreational tourism, forestry, riparian vegetation and national parks.
Each land use has points allocated for its environmental, employment (a proxy for social values) and economic impacts, and a minimum level of resources required for establishment (Figure 1). Each team has access to a fixed set of resources in the form of land, water and money, which they can use to change land use in the catchment under different climate scenarios. They can sell off unwanted land uses and establish new ones from the sale proceeds
Teams are also given access to a preconfigured spreadsheet calculator that provides them an estimate of available resources, profits earned, and a total sustainability score based on their choices (Figure 2). The calculator can be used to simulate different options before they finalise their selection. It gives error messages if resources are exceeded. The team with the highest sustainability score, that is, the total of environmental, employment and economic points, wins the round. As scores cumulate over the years, forward thinking is essential as, for example, a choice
that yields high scores in a wet year may become unviable in very dry years, or a vineyard may cost a lot to establish and may not return profits for several years. The game is designed such that over multiple rounds, students become familiar with trade-off decisions and longer-term effects of land use choices and adapt their strategies accordingly. At the end of the final round, each team shares their total score and the strategies they found useful to improve their score. The team with the highest overall cumulative sustainability score wins the game.
Major, rivers, lakes and towns and land uses within the River Derwent catchment. (from Eriksen et al. 2011)
Figure 1 Derwent River (Tasmania) Catchment Game map and examples of land use cards.
The study was approved by the Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee of the University (ref: H0026907). The learning activity and research were undertaken during school and university terms, between February and May 2022.
The learning activity was an integral and compulsory part of the learning in the units of study but participating in the research component was optional. Consent to participate in the research was initially gained from the principal of the school, the year 7 and 10 science teachers, the university unit coordinator and lecturer who would facilitate the activity. These classes were identified as potential participants as the activity was both appropriate for the age groups and aligned with curriculum content. The school students participating in the science classroom and their parents or guardians were informed of the research and their consent requested, through the standard consent procedures followed by the school. A similar approach was taken with university participants, wherein consent to participate was obtained from the unit coordinator, prior to students being recruited. Both schoolteachers and the university coordinator and lecturer will hereafter be referred to as teachers.
Before commencing the learning activity, each teacher explained the aims of the research study and surveys and gave students the choice to participate in the study. All students participated in the learning activity, but only the ones who gave written consent (with additional parental consent
for minors) had their data saved for research purposes. No personal information of students was collected in the survey; however, year level was recorded for each student. Those students who consented to participate in the research component were asked to provide a unique identifier code to enable the research team to link pre- and post-game survey responses to detect changes in understanding (school ID code first two letters of pet’s name + day of birth + last two letters of favourite ice-cream flavour; Uni ID Code, favourite animal + three numbers). It would allow the research team to identify and delete data of a student if they decided to withdraw from the research. None of the participants requested that their data be withdrawn.
The Catchment Game was played by 74 Year 7 (Y7) students, 61 Year 10 (Y10) students and 32 university (Uni) students. Students who completed pre- and post-game surveys, and who provided consent to participate in the research and a unique matching ID code, were considered as participants. The number of players and participants in the research are grouped by the study cohort in Table 1. (next page)
Figure 2 Catchment Game spreadsheet calculator
Note: The Y7 and Y10 students who did not participate in the research were excluded because of nonmatching ID codes, not because they refused to participate. Eight teachers participated in the learning activities and research; one teacher was involved in teaching two cohorts. The first and second authors of this paper, who were also teachers, additionally reviewed their experiences together as part of writing this paper.
Evaluation of learning
To assess the outcomes and effectiveness of the game as a learning activity (Research Question 1), all student participants completed pre- and post-game surveys (Supplementary Information 1A and 1B). These surveys were developed by the researchers and reviewed by participating teachers. The pre-game survey asked students about their prior knowledge of the Derwent River catchment and more specifically, land and water use within the catchment. They were also asked to rank the cost of different land uses, environmental impacts, values and sources of knowledge. Before students completed the survey, the teacher reiterated that the survey was not a test and was only used for research. The post-game survey included the same questions as the pre-game version as well as additional questions about their experience of the game, of teamwork and what they learned from the game. Learning of new concepts and skills was determined by comparing student responses to the same questions asked in the pre- and post-game surveys and by summarising their responses to the open-ended question in the post-game survey: ‘List two things you learned about the Derwent River Catchment’. Codes next to participant quotes in this paper reflect the student cohort (Y7/ Y10/ U) and their respective teachers (T7/T10/TU) followed by two characters to uniquely identify each participant.
Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means) were used to summarise changes in understanding or preferences across the three cohorts of students. Where differences were apparent, a Wald chisquared test (Agresti, 2012) was used to determine the significance and confidence intervals for changes in categorical variables across matched pairs. A p-value below 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Teachers who consented to participate in the research completed a teacher survey (Supporting Information 2) to share their perspectives and observations of learning outcomes achieved because of the game (Research Question 2). Teachers were also asked about the level of students’ engagement with the game, if they would consider using the game again, and suggestions for a digital version of the game.
Results
Research Question 1: How does game-based learning help students to learn scientific concepts relating to water catchments and develop their 21st century skills?
Increased awareness of the Derwent River Catchment
After playing the game, significant numbers of students across all three cohorts reported greater confidence in identifying the spatial boundaries of the Derwent River catchment on a map (Table 2). The spatial extent of the catchment was one of the top four themes of learning that students identified themselves (Table 3), with some expressing surprise that “it covers a lot larger of an area than I thought” (Uap) or that “it is a big system” (Y10ao).
One student noted that they “learnt where in Tasmania the Derwent River is because before I played, I had no idea at all” (Y7bh).
Table 2 Change in students' confidence in drawing the boundary of the Derwent Catchment on a map – comparison of pre- and post-game survey responses of Y7 (n=58), Y10 (n=40) and Uni (n=32) students.
Ability to identify boundaries of the Derwent catchment on a map (approximately or accurately) Proportion of students
Awareness of the diversity of land and water uses in the catchment was the most frequent selfreported learning (Table 3). Before the game, most students were aware of farming, aquaculture, recreation, life in rivers and people living in the catchment. Through the game, they developed awareness of towns, manufacturing, national parks and forestry within the catchment. Several Uni students referred to “how broad the range of uses of the catchment is” (Uav) and “how much it provides for employment, the economy and the environment” (Uak). A Y7 noted “I found out about how much water and land things use, I didn’t expect berries for example to use as much water and I didn’t expect dryland sheep to use that much land” (Y7aq).
(See Table 3 next page)
Table 3 Themes of self-reported learning by Y7 (n=54), Y10 (n=33) and Uni (n=32) students, after playing the game. Response to the question: List two things you learned about the Derwent River Catchment.
Economics of land use – resource requirements for different uses, the costs involved in establishment, and the influence of water availability on the returns to be made – was identified as the other key learning from the game by students in Y7 (45%) and Y10 (33%) cohorts (Table 3). For example, Y7 students learnt that “if you buy something it is better to sell something and that profits change in years where there is less/more water available” (Y7cc), or “that organic things are much more expensive that other things” (Y7bi), or that “being careful of how much land we use is useful and money is important” (Y7be). A Y10 student noted “wet/dry seasons will effect the economy differently” (Y10bg), while a Uni student learnt about “value and priority decision making, especially around economic development and cost effectiveness” (Uax). Economic awareness was also evident in the changed rankings of the setup and running costs of different land uses in the catchment. All but two students changed their rankings after playing the game.
Relative impacts of different land uses on the river or the broader environment was the third theme of learning identified by students (between 16% and 26%; Table 3). They learned about “what things are good for the environment and what things are bad for it” (Y7bo) and the “use of water in the surrounding environment and damages it can cause” (Y10ap). One student reflected “I thought national parks meant you couldn't hurt it, but I didn't know it was that good” (Y7af). After the game, all students changed the rankings of negative impact of various land uses on the river; they increased ranking of impacts of aquaculture, forestry, hydro-electricity and manufacturing and reduced ranking of the impacts of people living along the river, towns and recreation (see Figure 3 next page).
Change in ranking of negative impacts of land uses on the river (proportion of students).
Figure 3 Post-game change in ranking of the negative impacts of land uses on the river. Positive values represent the proportion of students who increased their ranking, while negative values represent those who reduced their ranking.
Shift in values and priorities
Students were asked to rank the values they associated with the Derwent catchment — Environment, Economy and Employment — on a scale of importance before and after the game. Student rankings were categorised as ‘polarised’ if they showed a strong orientation towards one value, or ‘balanced’ when multiple values were prioritised. After playing the game, there was a statistically significant shift away from polarised rankings for the Y10 cohort, with other cohorts showing minor shifts (Figure 4). Before the game, Environment was rated as the most important by over 80% of students. Economy and Employment were ranked highly by only 20% to 40% of students.
Post-game survey results suggest a shift in values from Environment towards Economy and Employment. The shift in values is also evident in the self-reported learning of students, where they described the importance of the Derwent catchment (Table 3). Several students said that the catchment was important, with some noting that “environment, economy and employment are all evenly important” (Y7bn).
Figure 4 Proportions of students with polarised rankings of values before and after the game.
Sustainability and 21st century skills
Students were asked to rank from most important to least important, the things that will make the Derwent River Catchment sustainable in 2050. Overall, planting more trees, creating national parks, stopping extraction of river water, educating more people and changing land use were ranked highly before and after the game. However, the change in rankings after the game (Figure 5) is informative: education, planting trees and stopping of extraction dropped in ranking while equal importance of all actions, national parks and tourism were ranked higher.
The ability to see connections between different parts of the catchment and track the trade-offs or balance across multiple factors (environmental, economic and employment) represents systems thinking. Nineteen percent of Uni students identified connectedness as a learning from the game, while 12% of Y7 and 18% of Y10 students learned more about balance and trade-off between different values (Table 3).
A Y7 student reflected on the importance of trading cautiously: “in the dry years we need to be more careful with water even if we have to sell something and get no money back just to save water to survive, and in the wet years to spend a bit more so we don't have too much water” (Y7bl).
A Y10 student emphasised the idea of juggling everything accordingly: “how you have to buy to sell and get more money and then how things balanced each other out” (Y10aq). Furthermore, the understanding of connections and trade-offs highlighted the challenge of making decisions about water allocation. Students expressed this in a variety of ways: “I learned that it is quite hard to find things that suited the Derwent River Catchment without destroying the land or not gaining any profit” (Y7bf); “it reminded me that it is a complicated process finding the best investments for all the aspects of the Derwent River Catchment and there is no one solution” (Y10av); or “how interconnected and difficult management strategies are” (Uax).
As the game was a group activity, students had to negotiate their preferences and select a set of changes in each round. The differential impacts of each land use meant they had to increase or decrease land and water allocations to maximise the sustainability score for their group. When asked about the way decisions were made in each group, over 80% of all students indicated that there was agreement about the decisions that were made, whether they were made unilaterally or as a group. A small proportion of these students (< 10%) indicated that they disagreed along the way but were able to agree in the end. The Y7 students from two groups (14% of the cohort) worked without the agreement of each member.
Figure 5 Change in ranking of actions to improve the sustainability of the catchment in 2050
Research Question 2: According to participating teachers, what were the strengths and weaknesses in using an SSI game to teach science concepts?
Teachers rated the game (on a scale from 1 to 5), in terms of its ease as a teaching activity, student engagement, learning outcomes (knowledge and skills) and their willingness to use it again. The results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Teaching ratings of the Catchment Game (n=9). Q1 and Q2: Scale of 1 to 5; 1 –extremely difficult to play; not engaged in the game; 5 – very easy to play; engaged most of the time in the game. Q3, Q4, and Q5: Number of teachers who offered a 'yes' or 'no' response.
Q3 Do you think this game enhanced student understanding of catchment/land use concepts?
Q4 Did you observe any of the groups negotiating/collaborating amongst themselves during the game?
Q5 Would you consider using this game again next year?
Most of the Y7 and Y10 teachers found the game neither easy nor difficult to use as a teaching activity, while Uni teachers found it easy to use. The main issue identified was the complexity of the Excel spreadsheet, which had too much information and inbuilt formulae that could be lost. The land use cards, and resource requirements were found to be confusing for Y7 students in particular. The mean engagement score given by Y7 teachers was lower than the score given by Y10 and Uni teachers. While noting that some students always engage more than others, the teachers observed that the game’s steep learning curve made it hard for some students to catch up.
All three Y10 teachers, the two Uni teachers and two of the four Y7 teachers confirmed that the game enhanced student knowledge of catchment and land concepts. They observed that students were working out the costs and trade-offs of different strategies as they tried to maximise their points. One teacher observed that the game helped with “visualisation of the process, experiencing the balance of ecological beliefs vs ‘spreadsheeting’ to make the numbers work” (T10ac). Furthermore, these teachers described that it was mostly the concept of management (e.g., different users, water consumption, costs, values) that was enhanced. While this was valued, several teachers also expressed concern that students were too focused on the Excel spreadsheet rather than the map or the catchment: “although often the focus just became trying to "get the number the highest" without any thought to what was going on. It became just trial and error focusing only on the number not what was happening in the catchment” (T10ab); or “they just wanted to get the score up as high as they could without consideration of the environment” (T7aa).
One Y7 teacher and one Y10 teacher further noted that the trades made during the game may not correspond to what happens in real life, and that some level of land-use suitability should be built into the game. They suggested that an online game with an interactive map could address some of these issues. To improve the knowledge gained from the game, several teachers suggested to run this game as part of a larger interdisciplinary unit on water catchments, drawing from Science and Geography content areas. This would allow for in depth understanding and time to reflect on the trade-offs involved in decision making: “maybe having time to stop and discuss as a whole group
the implications on the catchment for certain decisions. What does removing a farm mean for people in that area?” (T10ab).
Overall, teachers believe that this game fosters skills in collaboration, negotiation, teamwork, communication and reflection on consequences of choices: “it was especially good to see the interactions between people with more production based and more environmental sustainability focussed world views” (TUaa).
Finally, all but one teacher would consider using this game again. The teacher who did not want to use the game attributed it to its poor playability and the other issues mentioned above. Several teachers suggested that the game could be improved if it were run as part of a unit on water catchment, if it was made into a computerised game with realistic constraints, if it was not as focussed on maximising the score and if more time was allowed for discussion.
Discussion and conclusions
We found that the Catchment Game enabled students to learn concepts and skills that contribute towards Vision II for addressing the SSI of sustainable water management. Of these, the most significant learning outcomes across all three cohorts of students were increased awareness of their local catchment, the impacts of different land uses on the river and different values associated with the catchment. The increase in awareness of land and water uses in the catchment can be explained by the location of the school and university in downstream urbanised areas of the Derwent catchment. Several students expressed surprise about the extent of the whole catchment that drains into the Derwent River and the various users that rely on it. The game enhanced understanding of the relative scale of impacts of land uses on the river. Previously, students were mostly aware of urban land uses and point source impacts. After the game, they became more aware of distant rural uses and diffuse sources of pollution and revised their rankings accordingly. Such place-based learning helps students to engage with complex issues in their lived environments and explore possibilities to address them (Squire et al., 2007).
The game forced students to wrestle with questions of prioritising economic values, employment opportunities or environmental impacts as they sought to maximise their score.
This enabled appreciation of trade-offs involved in decision making and an understanding that we cannot have it all. Students also had to contend with reduced water availability and profits in dry years. Y7 and Y10 students reflected on the importance and difficulty of balancing different factors, while Uni students related this explicitly to the connectedness of everything. An outcome of this awareness is evident in the shift away from polarised views of environment and economy to a more nuanced understanding of diverse values, especially amongst the Y10 cohort who had a strong preference for environmental values before playing the game. Through the game, students were able to practice systems thinking to better understand not only the science itself but also its relevance and application in addressing real-world challenges (i.e., consequences of changes in the Derwent catchment), leading to more informed, empathetic, and responsible decision-making. The game thus provides a field of practice for situated systems thinking (DeVane et al., 2010), which is crucial for comprehending and addressing SSI.
This pilot study also highlighted issues with the Catchment Game and with using games for learning more broadly. As some teachers observed, students became too focussed on the spreadsheet calculator and on maximising their score. The game did not prompt students to consider the physical or political feasibility, environmental constraints or the ethical implications of the changes they were making. Winning became paramount. This is evident in the changes to rankings of sustainability actions after the game. For example, planting trees, education and stopping extraction were ranked lower after playing the game, even though these strategies would have improved the environmental score. Uni students discussed the pros and cons of different uses in the time between rounds; there was no time for these types of discussions among the Y7 and Y10 students. The effects of these discussions could explain Uni students’ ranking of all actions as being equally important. Marklund and Taylor (2016) found that retaining student attention on the subject matter can be difficult when gamebased learning is used; students can get distracted by game elements unrelated to the topic. They recommend framing the game within the overall context of the curriculum and disabling distractive elements of the game where possible.
The Catchment Game required students to work with others in teams. While most teachers said the game fosters negotiation and collaboration skills, they also noted that students were unable to catch up if the learning curve was too steep. This is a challenge teachers face all the time. Novice learners require more detailed instructions and time to develop their knowledge, while detailed instructions can have negative consequences for more experienced learners (Kalyuga et al., 2003). The Catchment Game involves active learning wherein students are presented with lots of options with interconnected consequences. Students without some prior understanding of catchments could indeed find it too overwhelming to engage or focus narrowly on winning without consolidating their learning (Case, 2019).
Two improvements highlighted by the teachers were to 1) run this game as part of a unit on water catchments where students can learn some basic concepts and to 2) make it into a computerised spatial game with realistic constraints. These two ideas would alleviate the issues with too much focus put on maximising the score, the lack of time for discussions and provide a scaffolded learning experience for students. An excursion to different parts of the catchment could further enhance learning by situating it in meaningful contexts, linking the virtual catchment in the game with the physical environment of the catchment (Squire et al., 2007). Furthermore, a computerised version of the game could include different levels of difficulty to cater to both novice and experienced learners.
An integrated unit on water catchment for Year 7–10 students, aligned with the Australian Curriculum version 9 and combining Science, Geography, Design & Technologies, and Digital Technologies, provides a holistic understanding of water catchment systems and their significance in environmental sustainability, resource management and human activity. By exploring how water catchments function as interconnected systems influenced by scientific, technological, and societal factors, students gain a comprehensive perspective on the environment. This equips them to analyse and address sustainability challenges effectively. Additionally, the Catchment Game reinforces cross-disciplinary connections, demonstrating real-world applications of their learning. Possessing the skill to see the bigger picture by assembling diverse elements, is an essential ability in the 21st century (Meadows, 2008). Importantly, the Catchment Game provided
them with an opportunity to appreciate the diverse perspectives of other group members, as they sought to understand how social, cultural, or economic factors impact environmental systems. Students with these kinds of skills are certainly better equipped for adult life and develop a deeper appreciation for life on this planet. Moreover, these abilities enable them to contribute meaningfully to society, fostering a sense of individual agency and collective citizenship needed to shape a just, equitable and sustainable future.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr Adam Forsyth the then Principal of St Michael’s Collegiate for supporting this project and allowing the school to participate in this research. We also express our sincere appreciation to the teachers and students from both St Michael’s Collegiate and University of Tasmania for actively engaging in this research and providing valuable feedback to the authors. We also acknowledge Dr Ian Hunt for his help with statistical testing, the developers and host of the online Catchment Detox Game, on which our game was modelled, and Katrina Durham for her help with designing the paper version of the game.
About the Authors
Dr Laure M. Despland, science and mathematics teacher (7-12) at St Michael’s Collegiate, proficiency in environmental sciences and management, and science education.
Dr Saideepa Kumar, lecturer and coordinator of Master of Agriculture and Food Sciences at UTas, expertise in water management and governance, systems thinking, social research and financial management.
Professor Sharon Fraser, Associate Head of Research School of Education UTas, specialist in science and STEM, curriculum, and pedagogy across schools, higher education institutions, and communities.
References
Agresti, A. (2012). Categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Amadi, C. S. (2021). The integration of 21st-century skills in science: A case study of Canada and the USA. Education and Urban Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211062531
Bencze, L., Pouliout, C., Pedretti, E., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., & Zeidler, D. (2020). SAQ, SSI and STSE education: Defending and extending "science-in-context". Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 825–851.
Case, N. (2019, April 23). Curse of the chocolatecovered broccoli (or: Emotion in learning).
Nicky Case. https://blog.ncase.me/curse-of-thechocolate-covered-broccoli-or-emotion-in-learning/ De Freitas, S. (2018). Are games effective learning tools? A review of educational games. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 74-84.
DeVane, B., Durga, S., & Squire, K. (2010). 'Economists who think like ecologists': Reframing systems thinking in games for learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(1), 3-20.
DuPuis, E. M., & Ball, T. (2013). How not what: Teaching sustainability as process. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 9(1), 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2013.11908108
Fenemor, A., Phillips, C., Allen, W., Young, R. G., Harmsworth, G., Bowden, B., Basher, L., Gillespie, P. A., Kilvington, M., Davies-Colley, R., Dymond, J., Cole, A., Lauder, G., Davie, T., Smith, R., Markham, S., Deans, N., Stuart, B., Atkinson, M., & Collins, A. (2011). Integrated catchment management— interweaving social process and science knowledge. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 45(3), 313-331.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Haglund, J., & Hulten, M. (2017). Tension between visions of science education: The case of energy quality in Swedish secondary science. Science & Education, 26, 323–344.
Hall, E. (1999). Science education and social responsibility. School Science Review, 81, 14–16.
Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense.
Hodson, D. (2010). Science education as a call to action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(3), 197-206.
Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: A mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 245-270.
Hromek, R., & Roffey, S. (2009). Promoting social and emotional learning with games: "It's fun and we learn things". Simulation & Gaming, 40(5), 626644.
IPCC (2021), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.
Kapur, M. (2015). Learning from productive failure. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 51-65.
Marklund, B. B., & Taylor, A. S. A. (2016). Educational Games in Practice: The challenges involved in conducting a gamebased curriculum. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(2), pp122-135.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Penguin Press.
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Sustainability Institute.
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L. & Tytler, R. (2017), Engaging with socially acute questions: Development and validation of an interactional reasoning framework. J Res Sci Teach, 54: 825-851. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21386
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258-283.
Prain, V., Waldrip, B., Sbaglia, R., & Lovejoy, V. (2017). Towards personalising learning in school science: Making this learning more relevant. Teaching Science, 63(1), 27-33.
Psotka, J. (2013). Educational games and virtual reality as disruptive technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 16, 69–80.
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy, science literacy. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 729780). Taylor & Francis.
Roberts, Douglas A., & Rodger W. Bybee. 2014. Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In Handbook of Research on Science Education. Edited by Norman G. Lederman and Sandra K. Abell. New York: Routledge, 545–58.
Royle, K., & Colfer, S. (2010). Computer games and learning–where next? The breadth and scope of the use of computer games in education. CeDARE.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?. Research in science education, 37, 371391.
Saravanan, V. S., McDonald, G. T., & Mollinga, P. P. (2009). Critical review of integrated water resources management: Moving beyond polarised discourse. Natural Resources Forum, 33(1), 76-86.
Schleicher, A. (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300002-en
Squire, K. D., Jan, M., Matthews, J., Wagler, M., Martin, J., Devane, B., Holden, C., Barnett, M., & Barab, S. A. (2007). Wherever you go, there you are: Place-based augmented reality games for learning. In B. E. Shelton & D. Wiley (Eds.), The design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 265-294). Sense Publishers.
Stauffer, B. (2022, January 10). What are 21st century skills? AES Applied Educational Systems. https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/what-are21st-century-skills
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
White, P. J., N. M. Ardoin, C. Eames, & M. C. Monroe. (2023), "Agency in the Anthropocene: Supporting document to the PISA 2025 Science Framework", OECD Education Working Papers, No. 297, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi. org/10.1787/8d3b6cfa-en.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
Supporting Information
Supporting Information 1A: Pre-game survey
PRE-GAME STUDENT SURVEY
This study aims to investigate the effects of using a place-based game in school and university teaching to improve understanding of the interconnectedness of water and land in river catchments and the trade-offs that need to be negotiated for sustainable management of water.
Q1. A catchment is defined as the area that captures rainfall which will drain into a river system. How well could you draw the boundaries of the Derwent River Catchment on a map?
Very well (accurately)
Well (approximately) Not well (not at all)
Q2. Rank from most to least important the following values associated with the Derwent River Catchment.
(Note: 1 = most important and 3 = least important. If you think they are all equally important, rank them all as 1)
Environment Employment Economy
Q3. Which of the following use land and water in the Derwent River Catchment?
(Note: select as many as you want)
Farming (e.g., fruit growers, vineyards, dairy and cattle farms, sheep farms)
Aquaculture
Hydro-electricity
Manufacturing
Forestry (plantation)
Recreation (fishing, boating, caravan parks)
National parks, reserves, trees along banks)
Life in rivers (e.g., fish, bugs, aquatic plants)
Towns
People living along the river
Q4. Rank from most to least expensive the following farm types according to their set up and running costs.
(Note: put these options in order from most expensive to set up and run to least expensive to set up and run)
Crops
Fruits (e.g., berries, apples, cherries)
Vineyard
Sheep
Beef
Dairy
Q5. Rank from greatest negative impact to least negative impact on the health of the river the following uses of land and water in the Derwent River Catchment.
(Note: put these options in order from greatest negative impact to least negative impact)
Farming (e.g., fruit growers, vineyards, dairy and cattle farms, sheep farms)
Aquaculture
Hydro-electricity
Manufacturing
Forestry (plantation)
Recreation (fishing, boating, caravan parks)
National parks, reserves, trees along banks
Life in rivers (e.g., fish, bugs, aquatic plants)
Towns
People living along the river
Q6. Which of these is the best approach to allocating water to users?
(Note: select one)
Evenly between all users
According to water availability only
According to the needs of each user
According to the needs of each user and water availability
Q7. In a dry year (i.e. less water available) which user(s) would you prioritise to access water?
(Note: select your top three)
Farming (e.g., fruit growers, vineyards, dairy and cattle farms, sheep farms)
Aquaculture
Hydro-electricity
Manufacturing
Forestry (plantation)
Recreation (fishing, boating, caravan parks)
National parks, reserves, trees along banks)
Life in rivers (e.g., fish, bugs, aquatic plants)
Towns
People living along the river
No one in particular, each user receives the same amount
Q8. Who has the best knowledge for management of the Derwent River Catchment?
(Note: select as many as you want)
Important agricultural and commercial users of the river
People living along the river
Scientists
People working for the government
Tasmanian Aboriginal People
Q9. Thinking about climate change specifically, in 2050, the Derwent River and its surroundings will be:
(Note: select one)
Exactly like it is today, nothing will change
The surroundings will change but the river itself will remain the same
The river and its surroundings will change slightly
The river and its surroundings will change significantly
Q10. Rank from most important to least important, the things that will make the Derwent River Catchment sustainable in 2050
(Note: put these options in order from most important to least important. If you think they are all equally important, put the “EQUALLY IMPORTANT” option at the top)
Create more national parks
Plant more trees along riverbanks
Increase high-value agricultural production
Stop extracting river water
Change land use according to water availability
Educate people about different uses and values of water
Build new towns in the catchment
Create more tourism in the catchment
Different water users work together
Equally important
Q11. Which year are you in?
Year 7
Year 10
Q12. You have now completed this survey. Do you consent for the data collected here and from the post-game survey to be used for research purposes?
Yes (please enter your ID code using the formula on the board)
No
Supporting Information 1B: Post-game survey
POST-GAME STUDENT SURVEY
This study aims to investigate the effects of using a place-based game in school and university teaching to improve understanding of the interconnectedness of water and land in river catchments and the trade-offs that need to be negotiated for sustainable management of water.
Q1. In the pre-game survey, did you consent for the data collected in these surveys to be used for research purposes?
Yes (please enter your ID code, same as presurvey game)
No
Q2. A catchment is defined as the area that captures rainfall which will drain into a river system. How well could you draw the boundaries of the Derwent River Catchment on a map?
Very well (accurately)
Well (approximately)
Not well (not at all)
Q3. Rank from most to least important the following values associated with the Derwent River Catchment.
(Note: 1 = most important and 3 = least important. If you think they are all equally important, rank them all as 1)
Environment
Employment
Economy
Q4. Which of the following use land and water in the Derwent River Catchment?
(Note: select as many as you want)
Farming (e.g., fruit growers, vineyards, dairy and cattle farms, sheep farms)
Aquaculture
Hydro-electricity
Manufacturing
Forestry (plantation)
Recreation (fishing, boating, caravan parks)
National parks, reserves, trees along banks)
Life in rivers (e.g., fish, bugs, aquatic plants)
Towns
People living along the river
Q5. Rank from most to least expensive the following farm types according to their set up and running costs.
(Note: 1 = most expensive to set up and run, and 6 = least expensive to set up and run)
Crops
Fruits (e.g., berries, apples, cherries)
Vineyard
Sheep
Beef
Dairy
Q6. Rank from greatest negative impact to least negative impact on the health of the river the following uses of land and water in the Derwent River Catchment.
(Note: 1 = greatest negative impact and 7 = least negative impact. If you think that a user is not connected to the Derwent River, rank it as 0)
Farming (e.g., fruit growers, vineyards, dairy and cattle farms, sheep farms)
Aquaculture
Hydro-electricity
Manufacturing
Forestry (plantation)
Recreation (fishing, boating, caravan parks)
National parks, reserves, trees along banks)
Life in rivers (e.g., fish, bugs, aquatic plants)
Towns
People living along the river
Q7. Which of these is the best approach to allocating water to users?
(Note: select one)
Evenly between all users
According to water availability only
According to the needs of each user
According to the needs of each user and water availability
Q8. In a dry year (i.e. less water available) which user(s) would you prioritise to access water?
(Note: select your top three)
Farming (e.g., fruit growers, vineyards, dairy and cattle farms, sheep farms)
Aquaculture
Hydro-electricity
Manufacturing
Forestry (plantation)
Recreation (fishing, boating, caravan parks)
National parks, reserves, trees along banks)
Life in rivers (e.g., fish, bugs, aquatic plants)
Towns
People living along the river
No one in particular, each user receives the same amount
Q9. Who has the best knowledge for management of the Derwent River Catchment?
(Note: select as many as you want)
Important agricultural and commercial users of the river
People living along the river Scientists
People working for the government Tasmanian Aboriginal People
Q10. Thinking about climate change specifically, in 2050, the Derwent River and its surroundings will be:
(Note: select one)
Exactly like it is today, nothing will change
The surroundings will change but the river itself will remain the same
The river and its surroundings will change slightly
The river and its surroundings will change significantly
Q11. Rank from most important to least important, the things that will make the Derwent River Catchment sustainable in 2050
(Note: 1 = most important and 9 = least important. If you think they are all equally important, rank them all as 1)
Create more national parks
Plant more trees along riverbanks
Increase high-value agricultural production
Stop extracting river water
Change land use according to water availability
Educate people about different uses and values of water
Build new towns in the catchment
Create more tourism in the catchment
Different water users work together
Q12. Which year are you in?
Year 7
Year 10
Questions about the game
Q13. How easy or difficult did you find the game to play?
(Note: select one)
Very difficult
Difficult
Neither easy nor difficult
Easy
Very easy
Q14. Did you enjoy playing the game?
(Note: select one)
Not at all
Enjoyed some bits
Enjoyed it a lot
Q15. How did your group make decisions?
(Note: select one)
One or two made the decisions and we all agreed
One or two made all the decisions without getting agreement from others
We agreed and made all the decisions together
We disagreed a lot, but we agreed in the end
Q16. List two things you learned about the Derwent River Catchment.
Supporting Information 2: Teacher survey
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
1. Please introduce yourself and describe your role in this study, including some details about how you tested the game in the classroom.
2. How would you rate the ease of using the catchment game as a teaching activity, using a scale of 1-5, with 1 being extremely difficult and 5 being very easy. Please share your reasons for the score.
3. Did most of the students in your class engage actively in the game and related learning activities? Please rate class engagement on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being ‘did not engage much at all’ and 5 being ‘engaged most of the time’. Why do you think so?
4. Do you think this game enhanced student understanding of catchment/land use concepts? If so, could you describe how?
5. Did you observe any of the groups negotiating/ collaborating amongst themselves during the game? Do you think the game fosters development of specific skills?
6. Would you consider using this game again next year? If yes, would you like to see any improvements? If not, please share your reasons.
7. We are planning to develop a computer-based version of this game for future use. Do you have any suggestions for us to consider?
A literacy focus in science - teaching preservice primary teachers about semantic gravity
Anna-Vera Meidell Sigsgaard and Christine Preston
Abstract
Teaching science in middle/upper primary is often associated with difficulties in getting students to communicate their understandings in a scientific, legitimate way. Preparing pre-service teachers to address this issue is particularly relevant now with the increased focus on writing in the new primary science and technology k-6 syllabus [NESA 2024] in New South Wales. This article describes a two-hour workshop at the University of Sydney, School of Education with a group of science and technology specialisation students aimed at directing the preservice teachers’ attention to the role language plays in different kinds of science education activities. In the workshop the pre-service teachers were introduced to the concept of semantic gravity from Legitimation Code Theory as a way of seeing different levels of context dependency of science knowledge in different kinds of practical activities (Georgiou, 2016; Polias, 2016). This gave the students a powerful tool for seeing the importance of paying attention to and addressing the different kinds of language which students need for active participation in different types of science learning activities. This has the potential for supporting students’ development of understanding of science concepts and explaining observations in practical work.
Introduction
The teaching of scientific language has gained renewed prominence in Australian primary education, as evidenced by the revised K-6 syllabus [NESA 2024] in New South Wales in which explicit emphasis on teaching writing has been included in the science curriculum. This shift highlights the critical need for teachers to develop strategies for making scientific language meaningfully accessible to all students. Our article shares an approach to integrating language instruction within science teaching, using the concept of semantic gravity from Legitimation Code Theory.
This article emerged from a collaborative opportunity between two teacher educators working at the University College of Copenhagen (Denmark) and the University of Sydney (Australia). While attending the international ESERA conference in Cappadocia, Türkiye in 2023, we discovered our shared interests in making science knowledge accessible and engaging for primary students. Our work, at opposite ends of the world, turns out to include complementary approaches to helping teachers develop their science teaching strategies. One of these includes activating teachers’ awareness of the importance of connecting hands-on activities with scientific understanding in their teaching. Through support from the Danish Centre of Excellence in Science Education, we were able to bring our perspectives together in a two-hour workshop for final-year preservice teachers specialising in primary science education at the University of Sydney in October 2024.
Our approach combines insights from second language education with primary science teaching, drawing on successful practices from Danish classrooms that we believe can benefit all students learning science. We focused particularly on how the concept of semantic gravity (Maton, 2016) can help teachers navigate between abstract scientific concepts and concrete experiences, while simultaneously attending to the language demands of science learning. This framework aligns with the NSW syllabus's emphasis on both sophisticated language (Tier 2) and content-specific vocabulary (Tier 3), while extending beyond vocabulary to consider how language can be taught meaningfully within authentic scientific contexts.
The two-hour workshop we designed engaged preservice teachers with the concept of buoyancy through a carefully structured progression
from hands-on investigations to abstract representations. Throughout these activities, pre-service teachers were guided to examine how language-use shifted between the concrete and the abstract understandings of the topic, making explicit the connections between physical experiences and the mechanistic reasoning that characterise e.g. causal scientific explanations. This approach demonstrates how attention to semantic gravity can help teachers fulfil curriculum requirements for explicit language instruction while maintaining focus on scientific understanding.
Our goal in sharing this workshop experience is to help teachers develop their awareness of how language mediates scientific learning and their capacity to identify and teach relevant language features within meaningful contexts, while introducing the notion of semantic gravity. This work contributes to the broader goal of ensuring all students can access scientific knowledge through thoughtful integration of language and content instruction.
Initial teacher education context
The situation in which the lesson took place was with a small group of fourth year students (n=14, 15% of the Bachelor of Education (Primary) cohort) in semester 2 of their final year. These students will graduate with a NESA accredited specialisation in science and technology K-6. In addition to core units studied throughout their degree, the specialisation students complete two elective science and technology units in their final year of study. The specialisation qualification was developed in response to the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group report (TEMAG, 2014). Their recommendation to the Australian government and subsequent mandating by the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL, 2015) led to all primary teachers completing at least one subject specialisation. With mathematics, science and languages as priority areas, the Science and Technology K-6 specialisation program was first implemented at the University of Sydney in 2018. These students are given extra tuition in science and technologies content knowledge, science and technologies pedagogical content knowledge, and highly effective science and technology classroom practice (AITSL, 2017) and prepared to champion science and technology in primary schools.
Activities in the workshop
When working with pre-service teachers, it is important for them to become aware of the language of their key learning areas (subjects) so they can adopt an integrated approach to teaching it (Derewianka and Jones, 2016; Gibbons, 2009). Different kinds of activities in pre-service science education lessons – just like different activities in primary and secondary school science lessons – provide opportunities for students to engage with various kinds of science knowledge as well as pedagogic knowledge.
Based on findings from a research and development project in Denmark – a workshop was implemented to introduce preservice teachers to the notion of semantic gravity. Inspired by the first topic of study from the research project (sailing and buoyancy in 4th grade in Denmark –children aged 9-10 (Meidell Sigsgaard et. al., 2023; Meidell Sigsgaard, in press) preservice student teachers were asked to commence the workshop by doing a set of hands-on experiments. The preservice teachers were told that they would be doing similar types of activities to those of the 4th grade students observed in the project in Denmark, which the lesson reported on.
Activity 1 – Float / Sink
The preservice teachers worked in groups of 3 to perform a series of predictions and experiments to see which items would float when placed in a tub of water. Items tested included a metal nut, a paperclip, a plastic frog, a nail, plastic letters, and a toothpick (figure 1).
Activity 2 - Foil Boat
Students were asked to build a boat out of aluminium foil and test its buoyancy by loading it with nails/screws (figure 2). After having built one boat, they were asked to rethink their construction and build a second version, which they thought would be a better construction able to bear more weight. For the second construction, they could add materials to the aluminium foil such as paddle pop sticks and straws, if they thought these would help their boat’s buoyancy.
In each group of three, two preservice teachers took on roles of a ‘doer’ or a ‘language observer’. The language observers were asked to pay attention to and write down the kinds of language and words the ‘doers’ were using while conducting the experiments (figure 3 next page).
Figure 1 Items to test if they float or sink.
Figure 2 Testing the buoyancy of foil boat using nails.
Upon completing the experiments, the language observers reported that much ‘everyday’ language was being used, and most of it was aimed at the process of collaborating in constructing the boat (such as “hang on,” “oh look! “wait,” “let me try” etc.) and many unspecific words (such as ‘it’, ‘here’ etc.) were used. When prompted to think about what knowledge or learning the doers could have had - language observers noted that it could be hard to tell from the language use what the doers had actually learned. The preservice teachers noted, however, that everyone was engaged in the ‘doing’ and that working in pairs meant they had to collaborate in their experiments and do some talking as well.
Activity 2 - Content building
The preservice teachers were asked to watch a 3-minute-long explainer video. (https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=06TFRgPlmxU).
In this video a woman talks about how a lightweight paper clip sinks in water while a cargo ship weighing hundreds of thousands of tons floats. The explanation is supported by relevant video footage (i.e. of sailing cargo ships) and demonstrations done with a paperclip, a basketball and a bowling ball placed in a tub of water. The video also refers to objects’ density and Archimedes’ discovery that water is displaced by objects as being key understandings to what affects an object’s buoyancy. Having listened to the video, the ‘doers’ were asked to talk about what they understood from the video. The language observers noted that the language the doers were using now sounded more scientific, and that the doers now needed some language for explanations as well.
Next students were given a diagram (see figure 4) and the doers were asked to name as much as they could on the diagram. Again, the language observers were asked to observe the language the doers were using.
Figure 3 Example language observer record.
Figure 4 Image of a basketball floating in water with space for labelling relevant vocabulary.
In this activity the observers noticed that the doers were using more language about floating and buoyancy than while doing the experiments; some of the more ‘abstract’ or science-related words from the video occurred as well, such as “dense”, “density” “displace”, as well as concrete words for objects pictured in the diagram including “the ball”, “water in the tub”, “the walls”, etc. Upon reflecting on this activity, students noticed that because the doers had to explain what the diagram illustrates, they needed to engage with and think more about the phenomenon of buoyancy – which required them to use more ‘scientific’ words (tier 2 and 3 vocabulary) in addition to the concrete (tier 1) words for the things in the diagram.
Activity 3 - Text construction using “puzzle sentences”
Finally preservice teachers were given a text ‘chunked’ and physically cut into smaller word groups and asked to create sentences that make sense about buoyancy. Chunked sentence pieces included:
• words to represent relevant objects and things such as “water”, “the weight of a boat”, “very heavy objects (such as ocean liners)”,
• relevant processes for the objects and things to participate in such as “supports” “sink or float” “can float”
• circumstances under which the processes could happen such as e.g. “in water”, “depending on their shape”
• as well as connectors such as “while”, “and therefore”, “and although”.
Students were told they should try to use as many of the sentence pieces to create a text that says something accurate about buoyancy based on their understanding of the phenomenon (see figure 5). They were free to add words, if necessary, as well as e.g. endings to already existing words (such as -s to “sink” making “sinks”) if needed to create sentences that make sense.
Upon completing this activity, language observers noted that some groups had a harder time creating sentences than others. These groups were those in which the students did not appear to have a good grasp of buoyancy, while groups who understood how density and water displacement affects floatation, had an easier time
creating sentences from the chunks. This led to a reflective discussion about how understanding the science, and the language needed to describe the scientific phenomenon, are interrelated and in fact intertwined.
Semantic gravity as a way of seeing different ‘kinds’ of knowledge
Between activities, preservice teachers were introduced to the notion of semantic gravity from Legitimation Code Theory (Maton 2016) in a similar way to how teachers from the Danish project were introduced to the concept. Preservice teachers were shown a video excerpt from an observation done during a Danish 4th grade science lesson. In this video, the science teacher involved in the project leads a class discussion about what the 4th grade students’ experiments have taught them about buoyancy (see Meidell Sigsgaard, in press).
This three-minute excerpt is taken from observations made at the end of a day’s science lessons in which they conducted a series of buoyancy experiments. These activities were similar to the first two activities the preservice teachers did in the workshop: what floats and building an aluminium boat. Having constructed aluminium boats and loaded these with nails/ screws, rethought their constructions and rebuilt and tested them again, the teacher asks the 4th grade students to tell her (one at a time) what worked, and what they did. The two children who answer in the video each talk about their group’s constructions and how many nails they each were able to load before the boat sank. The teacher is attentive and asks them to consider why they think their later construction was better than the previous. Students seem to have an easy time
Figure 5 Example of student text construction.
answering questions about what they did, but less so when asked about why they think something worked better or not.
At this point, the pre-service teachers were presented with the definition of the term, semantic gravity, which “refers to the degree to which meaning relates to its context. The stronger the semantic gravity (SG+) the more meaning is dependent on its context; the weaker the semantic gravity (SG-), the less context dependent meaning is on its contexts” (Maton, 2016: 15). They were also shown how this concept was interpreted in the context of the project:
Table 1 Three levels of semantic gravity in the context of upper-elementary science lessons.
Coding categories for strengths of semantic gravity
Weaker semantic gravity (SG-)
Medium semantic gravity (SG0)
Stronger semantic gravity (SG+)
Description of coded content Examples from the data
Meanings expressing a scientific concept or understanding without referencing a specific situation.
Meanings expressing general tendencies and/or explanations.
Descriptions of the conducted experiments/specific contexts in the classroom.
(Meidell Sigsgaard, et al., 2023. Own translation)
This was followed by presenting them with the semantic gravity analysis of the brief videoed interaction between teacher and students they had seen (see Meidell Sigsgaard, et al., 2023). Through this, the preservice teachers quickly gained an initial understanding of how different levels of context dependence of knowledge can be expressed in an educational setting. In the following activity, preservice teachers were asked to try to apply their understanding of semantic gravity to the previously viewed ‘explainer’ video about buoyancy.
Activity 4: analysing an explainer video with semantic gravity
As a way of helping the preservice teachers to understand and use the concept of semantic gravity for analysing an educational setting, we
“A thing can float if it can displace more water than it weighs in itself."
“It was better [floated, ed.] with the bigger surface."
“Our boat sank when we put too many screws on it."
asked them to re-watch the explainer video about the concept of buoyancy, and to try to do a ‘rough’ semantic gravity analysis of the explanation as it develops in the video.
The preservice teachers were asked to re-watch the video. To help them analyse the video from the perspective of semantic gravity, they were given a handout with three strengths of semantic gravity, and asked to plot points while watching the video, which they thought represented stronger semantic gravity (SG+, more context-dependent meanings), medium semantic gravity (SG0), and weaker semantic gravity (SG-, less context-dependent meanings), also noting several words associated with that point to support their analysis (see figure 6).
The preservice teachers were then asked to compare their analyses with others in the workshop, discussing too, what this analysis allowed them to see which the first viewing did not.
Having compared their analyses, we led a wholeclass discussion with the preservice teachers focusing on which realisations they had, doing this type of analysis. This discussion segued into a broader, more general discussion as a closing for the workshop, centring around what the preservice teachers had become aware of through the sequence of activities they themselves had been through over the course of the workshop’s two hours. Many of the take-away insights from the workshop were revisited and expanded upon by the preservice teachers in their end-of module assignment, described in the following section.
Preservice teachers’ reflections on the workshop
The workshop provided the pre-service teachers with valuable insights into the importance of integrating language and literacy in science education. This can be seen in their unit assessment, where they produce a portfolio of selected examples of their professional learning in Science and Technology over the year that they reflect on.
One student reflected,
"Professor Anna-Vera Meidell Sigsgaard's lecture offered strategies to support meaningful and inclusive science instruction."
Specifically, the concept of semantic gravity resonated with many students, as seen in the same student’s reflection in which they noted that this understanding:
"highlights the need for interactive and engaging instruction that allows students to develop a keen comprehension of the topic."
The hands-on activities in the workshop demonstrated the effectiveness of practical experiences in learning science and understanding scientific concepts. Another student found the workshop particularly useful, as it allowed them to experience first-hand that
"students not only learn science but also develop language skills associated with explaining their tasks."
The approach demonstrated through the workshop’s activities emphasises the importance of teaching the language of science alongside its content, ensuring that students can effectively communicate their understanding.
A third student’s reflection encapsulates the key takeaway from the workshop:
Figure 6 Preservice teacher’s ‘rough’ semantic gravity analysis of the explainer video
"The most significant takeaway for me was the idea that strong semantic gravity—where knowledge is closely connected to realworld experiences—can enhance students' understanding of complex scientific ideas.”
The students adds that the workshop helped them understand that hands-on activities, while important, are not on their own enough to ensure students’ ability to communicate their knowledge and understanding when adding that the workshop:
“also raised questions about how to effectively assess students' grasp of scientific vocabulary and concepts while maintaining a balance between concrete and abstract representations.”
By ensuring students have a common starting point from which to build key scientific understandings, teachers can ground scientific concepts in relatable contexts and thus support students' learning and engagement with the subject matter.
The workshop also introduced the pre-service teachers to tools for analysing the effectiveness of tasks in conveying scientific concepts by trying out a semantic gravity analysis themselves. This was a particularly useful experience for one student, who found using semantic gravity as a tool to assess a classroom discussion eye-opening. They realised that while the teacher in the video asked open-ended questions, the students' responses remained at a context-dependent level, indicating a struggle to generalise their observations.
This realisation prompted the preservice teacher to reflect on their own practice and consider ways to extend their students' thinking and understanding. This point was also seen in another student’s reflection, where they saw that doing a semantic gravity analysis allowed them to see that students in the video struggled to generalise their observations and could not apply their learning to broader contexts beyond the specific situation. They wrote:
“Surprisingly, the teacher said the only statement that reached a SG- level, making me contemplate questions that would be helpful when reflecting on my own practice - Are my students being extended? Am I asking the right questions? What type of prompts should I be giving? Who is actually doing the thinking?”
Another student’s reflection highlights the potential of semantic gravity in supporting English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D) learners, who are often marginalised in classroom science conversations. They suggested providing labelling activities, constructing word walls that show the difference between everyday and science terminology, and engaging students in puzzlesentence activities to improve the inclusivity of science education (See Figure 7). This reflection links with research into disciplinary literacy pedagogy whereby “teaching linguistic processes of the discipline” (Putra and Tang, 2016 p. 569) can support students in writing scientific explanations (see also Derewianka, 1990 and Polias, 2016).
Figure 7 Excerpt from student assessment task
Semantic gravity is an analytical tool to make visible the context dependency of knowledge in different situations. Allowing students to experience this in a workshop, makes it possible for them to then understand the concept and apply it themselves both analytically and as a planning tool in their own practice (Meidell Sigsgaard & Jacobsen, 2021). The lesson was designed to make the preservice teachers’ aware of the intricate language and content connections (Meskill and Oliveira, 2019; Pfenninger, 2022; Roth, Scharfenberg and Bogner, 2022).
Due to the cognitive load required to pay attention to science content and language simultaneously, this work is mentally taxing. During the lesson we therefore modelled effective scaffolding required to support students’ learning including linguistic, visual and interactive activities throughout the lesson. Whilst research supports the effectiveness of such scaffolding with second language learners (Derewianka, 1990; Gibbons, 2016; Meidell Sigsgaard & Jacobsen, 2021), the strategies are easily applicable to all students.
Links to the National literacy progression and syllabus
Activities within the lesson can be linked to the National Literacy Learning Progression (ACARA, 2020) specifically related to Reading and viewing and Writing. For example, activity 3 would contribute to students’ development of Understanding texts “how a student becomes increasingly proficient in decoding, using, interacting with, analysing and evaluating texts to build meaning” (p. 31) including:
• identifies key words and the meaning they carry (e.g. nouns, verbs) (p. 34)
• recounts or describes the most relevant details from a text (p. 34)
• locates information or details embedded in the text (p. 35)
• identifies main idea and related or supporting ideas in moderately complex texts (p. 36)
• accurately retells a text including most relevant details (p. 36)
• identifies how technical and disciplinespecific words develop meaning in texts (p. 37)
This task also supports students’ understanding of how texts are written relating to the Creating texts sub-element helping students to: “become increasingly proficient at creating texts for an increasing range of purposes” (p. 40). In this task students were actively involved in using and developing literacy skills such as:
• creates short texts in different forms such as a simple recount (p. 42)
• creates texts for learning area purposes (e.g. labelling a simple diagram, ordering events on a timeline) (p. 43)
• uses learning area topic vocabulary (e.g. natural) (p. 44)
• uses cohesive vocabulary to indicate order, cause and effect (e.g. uses text connectives such as next, since) (p. 44).
Links to the national curriculum: science include the content statement “identify how forces can be exerted by one object on another and investigate the effect of frictional, gravitational and magnetic forces on the motion of objects” and elaboration “examine how the pushing force of a liquid enables an object to float” (ACARA, 2022).
Conclusion
The workshop demonstrated that attention to the language of science is necessary to support students' learning of scientific concepts. By teaching language as an integrated and meaningful part of science lessons, rather than an add-on, teachers can help students access and engage with the knowledge being taught. The concept of semantic gravity serves as a useful tool for focusing teachers' attention on the knowledge being taught and the language needed to access that knowledge, ultimately empowering preservice teachers to create more effective and inclusive science lessons.
About the Authors
Anna-Vera Meidell Sigsgaard currently works at the University College Copenhagen, Department of Teacher Education. Anna-Vera does research in second language education, teacher education and foreign language education.
Christine Preston is Associate Professor in Science Education at the Sydney School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney. Chris does research in teaching and learning in primary science and teacher education.
Acknowledgements
We want to acknowledge students’ contributions to this article as expressed in their final specialisation assignment and provision of photographs taken during the workshop:
Yasmin Ali, Lisa Choi, Tiffany Huang, Susan Lee, Cassie Monje, Yvette Roque.
References
Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL] (2015a). Guideline: Primary specialisation (Program Standard 4.4). Retrieved 18 January 2018 from the World Wide Web: https:// www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/ guideline-primary-specialisation
AITSL (2017). Program Standard 4.4: Primary Specialisation. Graduate outcomes stimulus paper. Retrieved 18 January 2018 from the World Wide Web: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/ resource/primary-specialisation---graduateoutcomes-stimulus-paper
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). 2022. Australian Curriculum: Science. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu. au/f-10-curriculum/science/
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) 2020. The National Literacy Learning Progression. Version 3.0.
Derewianka, B. (1990). Rocks in the Head: Children and the Language of Geology. In R. Carter (Ed.), Knowledge about language and the Curriculum (pp. 197–215). Hodder & Stoughton.
Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context. Oxford University Press. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016.
Georgiou, H. (2016). Putting physics knowledge in the hot seat: The semantics of student understandings of thermodynamics. In K. Maton, S. Hood, & S. Shay (Eds.), Knowledge-building: Educational studies in Legitimation Code Theory (pp. 176–192). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315672342-19
Gibbons, E. E. (2009). The effects of second language experience on typologically similar and dissimilar third language. Brigham Young University.
Maton, K. (2016). Building Knowledge about knowledge-building. In K. Maton, S. Hood & S. Shay (eds.) Knowledge-building: Educational studies in Legitimation Code Theory, p1-23. Routledge.
Maton, K., Martin, J. R., & Doran, Y. J. (Eds.). (2021). Teaching science: Knowledge, language, pedagogy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351129282
Meidell Sigsgaard, A.-V., Heinrich, S., Pagaard, D. M., & Olsen, P. S. (2023). Semantiske Bølger: sprogligt arbejde i natur/ teknologiundervisningen med fagligt fokus. MONA, 3, 26–43.
Meidell Sigsgaard, A.-V. (in press). Developing students’ science understanding with semantic gravity and meaningful language activities, in Earle, S., Fitzgerald, A., Preston, C. and Georgiou H., Primary Science Learning for Children, Teachers, and Communities- Stories of Practice and Possibility for Science Education. Springer.
Meidell Sigsgaard, A.-V. (2021). Samtale og interaktion i undervisningen. In S. K. Knudsen & L. Wulff (Eds.), Kom ind i sproget (2nd ed., pp. 91–108). Akademisk Forlag.
Meskill, C., & Oliveira, A. W. (2019). Meeting the challenges of English learners by pairing science and language educators. Research in Science Education, 49, 1025-1040.
Pfenninger, S. E. (2022). Emergent bilinguals in a digital world: A dynamic analysis of long-term L2 development in (pre) primary school children. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 60(1), 41-66.
Polias, J. (2016). Apprenticing Students into Science - Doing, talking & writing scientifically. Lexis Education.
Putra, G. B. S., & Tang, K. S. (2016). Disciplinary literacy instructions on writing scientific explanations: a case study from a chemistry classroom in an all-girls school. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 569-579.
Roth, T., Scharfenberg, F. J., & Bogner, F. X. (2022, July). Content and language integrated scientific modelling: A novel approach to model learning. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 922414). Frontiers Media SA.
Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group [TEMAG]. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Retrieved 18 January 2018 from the World Wide Web: https://docs.education.gov.au/ system/files/doc/other/150212_ag_response_-_ final.pdf
International
Mon 7 July to Thurs 10 July 2025
Pan Pacific Hotel
Perth – Western Australia
Hosted by the Australian Science Teachers Association (ASTA), this conference features:
– Streams on
- Quantum Sciences
- Climate Science and Energy Sustainability
- Physics and Space Sciences
- Chemistry and Forensic Science
- Psychology and Medical Sciences
- Biological and Environmental Sciences
- Earth and Agricultural Sciences
– Keynotes and workshops by leading educators and researchers
– Networking with Australian and International science educators
– Member registration rates for international delegates www.stawa.net/conferences/conasta
Symposium on Teaching Einsteinian Physics
Dates: Friday 11 July & Saturday 12 July 2025
Location: The University of Western Australia, Perth
Theme: Integrating contemporary physics concepts into classrooms
WA Museum Boola Bardip, Perth Tourism Western Australia
Ozone at Optus Stadium, Burswood Tourism Western Australia
Engage your students with hands-on science!
Looking for a fun and engaging way to spark a love of science in students? Spectra is a hands-on, nationally recognised program designed to inspire curiosity and encourage scientific exploration in students from Years 1 to 10. Whether used in the classroom, with extension students, in science clubs or by homeschooling groups, Spectra provides a structured yet flexible approach to learning through experiments, research, and hands-on investigations.
With vibrant, full-color activity cards – featuring Spike the Echidna in Junior Spectra (Yrs 1–4) – students can explore a wide range of science topics at their own pace. Plus, they’ll be awarded a certificate upon completion!
Available as digital downloads, Spectra cards are continuously updated to align with the Australian Curriculum: Science, ensuring fresh and relevant content.
Explore the full range of topics and order today at asta.edu.au/spectra For more information call 02 9346 9600 or email asta@asta.edu.au
Spectra
Card Topics
Active Earth ^
Aeronautics ^
Animals *^
Astronomy ^
Biodiversity ^
By the sea *
Carbon ^
Chemistry * ^
Clean and green *
Electricity ^
Energy ^
Entomology ^
Finding out about ourselves *
Heat *
Horticulture and agriculture ^
Indigenous science *^
Inventing and designing *
Looking into liquids *
Moving with air *
Nuclear power ^
Oceans ^
Outdoor science *
Pets and gardens *
Plants *^
Polar science ^ Predators and prey *
Rocks *^
Science and the environment ^
Science on the move *
Seasons *
Sight, light and colour ^
Sound science *^
Space science ^ Technology, designing and engineering ^
The human body ^ Tools, toys and machines ^ Water *^ What is it made of? *
Computer Technology for Curious Kids is a 128-page non-fiction text spanning six chapters authored by Chris Oxlade and illustrated by Nik Neves. Each chapter explores a different aspect of computer science, with accompanying visual aids to enhance understanding of text’s rich vocabulary. The content offers a comprehensive introduction to computer science, drawing upon numerous day-to-day examples of technology in action. New vocabulary is highlighted through bolded and upscaled fonts, with a glossary and index provided at the book’s end. No teacher notes are provided by the CSIRO to support teacher use of the book.
Personally, I found the sophistication of concepts fluctuated across the text. Concrete concepts such as histories, hardware components, and technological examples are explained in simple terms, facilitating understanding. In contrast, abstract concepts like networks, flow diagrams, binary arithmetic, and logic gates may present challenges for less familiar students. Sometimes students are expected to interpret visual and/or numeracy aids alongside the text to fully grasp concepts. This may present potential barriers due to symbolic language, necessitating numeracy support and scaffolding for interpreting data and binary values. Hence, using this resource in the classroom requires a measured approach, and apt pedagogical knowledge of
how students conceptualise ideas regarding the mathematical processes occurring inside a computer. Conversely, for students who are ready to engage with the content, I would strongly recommend this text as a gateway for building vocabulary, knowledge of the field, and an appreciation for the role and application of technology in a 21st century context.
For the purposes of brevity, I will focus mainly on chapters 3 and 4 in terms of their classroom use due to their direct relevance to student learning and application of knowledge.
Chapter 3, Data and Apps, provides an insightful view into the nexus between art and science. The exploration of pixels, vector graphics, sound and image editing, all supported through clear illustrations provides students with a creative spark the opportunity to explore digital technologies that can extend their artistic strengths. This is supported through examples of pixel grids, RGB colours, 2D vectors, and 3D models; supported through accurate and practically relevant descriptions. The consistent use of everyday examples can be employed in STEAM/DigiTech classrooms, where exemplars from the book can be explored using digital art and media editing software.
Chapter 4, Programming, explores coding at an introductory level, and provides examples of two programming languages. The first is
Scratch, a visual programming language where students connect blocks containing pre-written segments of code. The second is Python, a high-level interpreted language that most universities use in introductory computer science courses due to its high code readability, with syntax comparable to layperson speech. The concepts in this chapter are relevant to a first year computer science student. Program flow, block coding examples, and an overview of common data types with visual aids provides an excellent overview of fundamental and mandatory knowledge to begin coding. The only point of concern is the author calling floating point (decimal) values “real numbers” (p. 73). Whilst true in a pure mathematics context, most programming languages will refer to real numbers as floats. I would strongly recommend this chapter for any student who has an interest in learning to code, and students should be encouraged to recreate the examples within the text using an online Python code editor.
Chapters 5 and 6 provide an overview of the applications of computer science, breaking down the intangible internet into its individual parts and then reviewing its ubiquity as the Internet of Things (IoT) that support humans in their daily lives. I found these chapters to be
highly informative, and genuinely successful in demystifying what the Internet is, and targets misconceptions regarding jargon such as “cloud computing” (p. 97) actually just being physical storage computers. The pages on cyber security and online safety (pp. 102105) are focused and use relevant terms that students should know or be familiar with (e.g., phishing, fake news, trolling). For teachers, this can outline the start of conversations regarding anti-cyberbullying with students of all ages. These sections may be used as discussion points for data privacy and digital ethics with students.
Overall, this book would make a great addition to the libraries of tech savvy students, or STEM teachers who want a more visual and concisely worded overview of computer science ideas and technologies. I would also recommend this book when empowering young women in STEM, not only for its inclusive and realistic depictions of gender and race, but its recognition of Ada Lovelace as the first computer programmer. In practice, teachers should be wary and preread sections to assess the literacy and/ or numeracy scaffolds needed to support students when exploring abstract concepts.
Zois Stavrakas – Pre-Service Science Teacher (7-12), The University of Melbourne
Advertising space is available in Teaching Science, on our website asta.edu.au and social media platforms. Get in touch for advertising rates, email communications@asta.edu.au
AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
ASTA Executive Committee
President Margaret Shepherd Science Education Consultant NSW
President Elect
Paula Taylor Department of Education ACT
Member Associations
Science Teachers Association of Northern Territory (STANT)
President: Justine Small PO Box 1168, Nightcliff NT 0814 Tel: 08 8944 9324 Fax: 08 8922 2181 stanorthernterritory@gmail.com www.ptant.org.au/stant
