Indigenous ways of knowing and the Australian Curriculum: Science*

Michael Michie
Darwin, Australia

The consultation draft of the new national science curriculum was released at the beginning of March. Developed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), the curriculum is one of four nationally-endorsed curriculum documents being developed through agreement between the federal and state and territory governments. Some members of the Indigenous Science Network have been on the various committees responsible for developing the curriculum.

However, its release has not been without a touch of controversy. The Australian newspaper on 27 February 2010 came up with the headline, “Curriculum puts Dreamtime first”, followed by the by-line: 

“School students will learn about the Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, Chinese medicine and natural therapies but not meet the periodic table of elements until Year 10 under the new national science curriculum.”

The article continued in a similar vein, making judgements about the curriculum, some positive, some negative, some ill-informed, but seeming to have a go at the inclusion of Indigenous and other cultural knowledge at the expense of good traditional science.

Subsequently, The Australian published a second item entitled “Dreamtime ‘spiritual’, so off science course” on 4 March. In this article, the chairman of ACARA, Professor Barry McGaw, said he was unaware that the Dreamtime had been included in the curriculum and that the reference would be removed from the national science course. He justified this as a science graduate and former science teacher by stating, “I think Dreamtime is a religious or spiritual interpretation of the beginnings of life.”

I find Barry McGaw’s definition of the Dreamtime to be very limited and stereotyped. I agree that the Dreamtime can be interpreted as looking at origins but it has a much wider scope. The spiritual side of the Dreamtime is integral to it, not just an add-on, so the Indigenous knowledge can’t be separated from it. The Australian quotes from the curriculum, saying “Aboriginal people’s Dreamtime stories ... explain significant characteristics of the Earth’s surface and interactions between living things”. It was written in the context of the natural environment and living things, as an example of using other cultural knowledge. I also thought that McGaw’s ideas about the nature of science were dated, particularly from a science education perspective.

Recently the Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast a TV program entitled “Human journey: Australia”. It was about tracking the movement of Australian Aborigines out of Africa about 60 thousand years ago. It made use of lots of sophisticated science, including genetic testing. At the end of the program they were talking with some Aboriginal people at Gunbalanya, just north of Kakadu in the Northern Territory of Australia, and looking at their art work. One of the art pieces was of a female creation being and the story behind it was that she came from across the sea, which was much the same story the scientists were telling.

"the two stories,
the Western science story and the Indigenous story,
are complementary..."

I am suggesting that the two stories, the Western science story and the Indigenous story, are complementary and this is not the only case of finding complementary stories. In northern Australia there are many interactions between Western science and Indigenous knowledge which are becoming increasingly valuable to both sides and this is repeated elsewhere in Australia and worldwide. Late last year I attended astronomy presentations at the Darwin Festival and IATSIS in Canberra which looked at the interactions between western science and indigenous knowledge.

I believe that this is what the Indigenous Science Network stands for, the interaction of the two world views. If we are to have indigenous perspectives in the curriculum and to engage indigenous students in western science, issues like this need to be addressed, not sweep under the carpet through political actions and misunderstanding.

The curriculum itself

The new science curriculum is divided into three interrelated strands: Science inquiry skills; Science as a human endeavour; and Science understanding. Each strand is of equal importance. Indigenous cultural knowledge is part of the Science as a human endeavour strand. The scope of the curriculum is from Kindergarten to Year 10, with a brief note that Years 11-12 built on from it. The Science understanding lists content but not according to disciplines and is perhaps more integrated than the previous national science curriculum.

You can obtain a copy of the curriculum by visiting the ACARA website (www.acara.edu.au/default.asp) and following the links. You will be asked to register as part of the consultation process.

The first article from The Australian (27 February) is no longer on their website. The second article (Dreamtime ‘spiritual’, so off science courses, 4 March) is still available at The Australian website, at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/dreamtime-spiritual-so-off-science-courses/story-e6frg6nf-1225836724718.

Two other articles about the science curriculum can also be accessed at The Australian website:

Cum laude for the curriculum: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cum-laude-for-the-curriculum/story-e6frg71x-1225837140815

Science deans have doubts: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/science-deans-have-doubts/story-e6frg6nf-1225836706893

*This article was originally published in the Indigenous Science Network Bulletin for April 2010. This is a bimonthly online newsletter for those interested in indigenous science and indigenous science education. It can be accessed at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mmichie/.