Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 77–97 | Cite as

Responding to a Relevance Imperative in School Science and Mathematics: Humanising the Curriculum Through Story



There has been a recent push to reframe curriculum and pedagogy in ways that make school more meaningful and relevant to students’ lives and perceived needs. This ‘relevance imperative’ is evident in contemporary rhetoric surrounding quality education, and particularly in relation to the junior secondary years where student disengagement with schooling continues to abate. This paper explores how teachers translate this imperative into their mathematics and science teaching. Interview data and critical incidents from classroom practice are used to explore how six teachers attempted to make the subject matter meaningful for their students. Four ‘Categories of Meaning Making’ emerged, highlighting key differences in how the nature of science and mathematics content constrained or enabled linkages between content and students’ lifeworlds. While the teachers demonstrated a commitment to humanising the subject at some level, this analysis has shown that expecting teachers to make the curriculum relevant is not unproblematic because the meaning of relevance as a construct is complex, subject-specific, and embedded in understanding the human dimensions of learning, using, and identifying with, content. Through an examination of the construct of relevance and a humanistic turn in mathematics and science literature I argue for an expanded notion of relevance.


Science teaching Mathematics teaching Relevance Humanistic education Meaning making Stories Narrative Video stimulated recall Teacher identity Teacher passion 



I acknowledge the Australian Research Council and the Victorian Department of Education for their funding in support of the Improving Middle Years Mathematics and Science project with which this research is associated.


  1. Abreu, G. (2002). Mathematics learning in out-of-school contexts: A cultural psychology perspective. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 323–353). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  2. ACARA. (2009). Shape of the National Curriculum: Science. Barton: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Curriculum Studies Association (1996). From alienation to engagement: Opportunities for reform in the middle years of schooling (Vol. 3). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Google Scholar
  5. Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J. (2009). The role of narrative in communciating science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1683–1707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616–622.Google Scholar
  7. Biehler, R. (1994). Teacher education and research on teaching. Introduction. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Sträßer, & B. Winkelman (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 55–60). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Borasi, R., Sheedy, J. R., & Siegel, M. (1990). The power of stories in learning mathematics. Language Arts, 67(2), 174–189.Google Scholar
  9. Boström, A. (2006). Sharing lived experience: How upper secondary school chemistry teachers and students use narratives to make chemistry more meaningful. Unpublished thesis, Stockholm Institute of Education, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  10. Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darby, L. (2007). Experiencing relevant mathematics and science through story. Teaching Science, 53(3), 37–40.Google Scholar
  13. Darby, L. (2009). Translating a “relevance imperative” into junior secondary mathematics and science pedagogy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(3), 277–288.Google Scholar
  14. Darby, L. (2010). Subject cultures and pedagogy: Comparing secondary mathematics and science. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Department of Education Science & Training. (2003). Australia’s teachers: Australia’s future. Advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics. Agenda for action. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Doxiadis, A. (2003). Embedding mathematics in the soul: Narrative as a force in mathematics education. Opening address to the Third Mediterranean Conference of Mathematics Education, Athens, January 3, 2003. Retrieved August 2006, 2006, from
  18. Education & Training Committee. (2006). Inquiry into the promotion of mathematics and science education. Melbourne: Parliament of Victoria.Google Scholar
  19. Education Queensland (2001). New Basics—The why, what, how and when of Rich Tasks Retrieved June 26, 2008, from
  20. Enzensberger, H. M. (2000). The number devil: A mathematical adventure. London: Granta.Google Scholar
  21. Ernest, P. (2010). Add it up: Why teach mathematics. Professional Educator, 9(2), 44–47.Google Scholar
  22. Eyres, V. (1997). Steering a middle course. EQ Australia, 1, 8–9.Google Scholar
  23. Gates, P., & Vistro-Yu, C. (2003). Is mathematics for all? In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Kietel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 31–74). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative education research. Sydney: Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Goo, M. E. (2002). Techno maths: Technology enriched activities for the maths classroom. Flaxton: Qld, Post Pressed.Google Scholar
  26. Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2007). Australian school science education national action plan 2008––2012 volume 1. The National Action Plan. Barton: Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
  27. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  28. Hart, C. (2001). Examining relations of power in a process of curriculum change: the case of VCE Physics. Research in Science Education, 31, 523–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herrera, T., & Damian, C. (2000). Resources to help bring the real world into your classroom. ENC Focus: A Magazine for Classroom Innovators, 7(3), 46.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, B. F. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaput, J. J. (1994). The representational roles of technology in connecting mathematics with authentic experience. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Sträßer, & B. Winkelman (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 379–397). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1951). Philosophy of education. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  33. Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport: Alex.Google Scholar
  34. Malcolm, C. (2005). There's an emu in the sky: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  35. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1982). Thinking mathematically. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  36. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College, School of Education.Google Scholar
  37. Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175-187.Google Scholar
  38. Nagel, N. G. (1996). Learning through real-world problem solving: The power of integrative teaching. Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  39. Newton, D. P. (1988). Relevance and science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Niss, M. (1994). Mathematics in society. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholtz, R. Sträßer, & B. Winklemann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discourse (pp. 367–378). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. OECD (2003). The PISA 2003 Assessment framework—mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. downloaded
  42. Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi Study of the ‘Expert’ Community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sjoberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010, March). The ROSE project. An overview and key findings. from
  44. Speering, W. (1995). Great expectations: Science in the secondary school. In M. W. Hackling (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Western Australian Science Education Association (Conference Held at Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A. 17th Nov, 1995) (pp. 99–104). Mount Lawley WA: Edith Cowan University Department of Science Education.Google Scholar
  45. Stevens, R. (2000). Who counts what as math? Emergent and assigned mathematics problems in a project-based classroom. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 105–144). Westport: Alex.Google Scholar
  46. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia's future. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  47. Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the Primary-Secondary school transition. Burwood: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  48. Tytler, R., & Symington, D. (2006). Redesigning science teacher education to reflect the nature of contemporary science. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Fransisco.Google Scholar
  49. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience; Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London: The Althouse Press.Google Scholar
  50. Victorian Curriculum & Assessment Authority. (2005). Victorian essential learning standards: Discipline-based learning strand science. Melbourne: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.Google Scholar
  51. Walker, P., & Wood, E. (1994). Hands-on general science activities with real-life applications: Ready to use labs, projects and activities for grades 5–12. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  52. Wickman, P. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  53. Williams, G. (2003). Associations between student pursuit of novel mathematical ideas and resilience. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematical Education Research: Innovaton, Networking, Opporuntity (Vol. Vol. 2, pp. 752–759).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RMIT UniversityBundooraAustralia

Personalised recommendations