International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Public understanding of science as a separate

subject in secondary schools in The Netherlands

Wobbe De Vos & Jurrie Reiding

To cite this article: Wobbe De Vos & Jurrie Reiding (1999) Public understanding of science as
a separate subject in secondary schools in The Netherlands, International Journal of Science
Education, 21:7, 711-719, DOI: 10.1080/095006999290372

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290372

Published online: 29 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 118

View related articles

Citing articles: 25 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 1999, VOL. 21, NO. 7, 711– 719

Public understanding of science as a separate subject

in secondary schools in The Netherlands

Wobbe De Vos and Jurrie Reiding, Utrecht University, Utrecht,

The Netherlands

This paper describes and analyses an attempt to introduce the public understanding of science as a
subject in its own right to be taught to all students in upper secondary education in The Netherlands.
The aim of this paper is to make some of the experiences gained in this attempt, especially those related
to the development of curriculum content, available to others. As the large-scale implementation of the
new subject is still in progress, we focus on the initial stages of the introduction, covering the period
1994– 1998. This period includes: (i) the launching of the initiative by a departmental advisory com-
mittee; (ii) the subsequent formulation of attainment targets; (iii) a curriculum development project that
produced four teaching units tested in classroom experiments and meant as specimens to guide and
inspire the authors of schoolbooks; and (iv) the publication of the first schoolbooks on the new subject.
We conclude that in spite of its status as a separate subject, the current version of the course does not yet
have a clear identity that distinguishes it, in the eyes of students as well as teachers, unmistakably from
the traditional science subjects in the school.

Introduction
In 1994 an advisory committee set up by the minister of education of The
Netherlands proposed the introduction in upper secondary education of an entirely
new subject for all students in order to promote the public understanding of
science. The new subject, called Algemene Natuurwetenschappen (’ General
Natural Sciences’ ), or ANW, was to occupy well over 10% of the available time
in Grade 10. Its introduction, alongside the traditional science subjects that are
optional in Grade 10, was part of a far-reaching innovation in upper secondary
education.
The committee, after consulting several natural and social scientists and other
experts, came to the conclusion that the current educational system in The
Netherlands tended to encourage an intellectual one-sidedness, either in the nat-
ural sciences, or in the humanities and the social sciences. Therefore, a key element
of the proposal was that ANW was to be taught to all students in upper secondary
education, including those who, after Grade 9, had decided not to continue their
studies of the natural sciences. Some insight into the nature and origin of scientific
knowledge and into the role of science and technology in modern society was
considered by the committee to be an essential part of a general education for
every student. Because several non-science professional groups, e.g. lawyers, poli-
ticians, journalists, etc. are nowadays confronted with information from the nat-

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online Ñ 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/JNLS/sed.htm
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/JNLS/sed.htm
712 W. DE. VOS AND J. REIDING

ural sciences, ANW, without aiming at a thorough command of subject matter,

would provide future members of such groups with a vision on what science and
technology are and what role they play in society. As for the students who opt to
continue studying sciences in Grade 10, ANW would help them to put science and
technology into a wider, cultural, perspective, and to gain insight into the relations
between scientific knowledge and other important aspects of our civilization. In
this way, according to the committee, ANW would contribute to overcoming a
science–non-science dichotomy in our culture.
The main consideration which led to proposing a completely new subject,
rather than attempting to adapt the traditional science subjects, was the fact that
ANW could be made compulsory for all students, whereas the sciences, optional in
Grade 10, normally attract only a minority of the students. In addition, the com-
mittee also considered that by introducing a new subject it would circumvent
possible resistance arising from long-established teaching traditions in the existing
science subjects. As a tabula rasa, ANW was expected to more easily allow for new
teaching strategies, and new topics to be developed and implemented. Therefore,
no attempt was made to integrate public understanding of science into the existing
science subjects for the science students. Two other new subjects for all students,
viz. Humankind and Society, and Culture and Art Education, were proposed along
with ANW in order to further contribute to an all-round education.
Vague as it was, the committee’ s proposal, summarized in a two-page sketch,
was warmly welcomed by most commentators, including several teachers. A syl-
labus committee, established by the minister of education in 1994, set out to
specify ANW attainment targets. At the same time, a 3-year government-spon-
sored project was initiated by the Centre for Science and Mathematics Education
of Utrecht University (CSMEU), and the Institute for Curriculum Development
(SLO). The main aims of this project, led by a project group, were: (i) to produce
and test exemplary teaching material along the lines indicated by the initiators; and
(ii) to develop an in-service teacher training course in order to qualify science
teachers to teach the new subject. The syllabus committee and the project group
had regular contact. The project group also advised editors and authors of school-
books without, however, prescribing the actual content of the books, as school-
books in The Netherlands are published by private publishing companies that
operate outside the control of government institutions (although, for commercial
reasons, books normally comply with attainment targets set by the Ministry of
Education). By the time the project group finished its activities, in June 1997, six
publishers had announced the publication of textbooks on the new subject. By
August 1998 the first books had appeared.
In this paper, we distinguish, paraphrasing Goodlad (1979), between: (i) the
first outline of the new subject, as described above, here called the visionary cur-
riculum; (ii) the set of attainment targets drawn up by the syllabus committee, here
referred to as the designed curriculum; (iii) the teaching material developed in the
project, i.e. the written curriculum; and (iv) the content of the available school-
books in their first edition, the published curriculum.

The visionary curriculum

The visionary curriculum is probably best characterized by the advisory commit-
tee’ s statement that all citizens, after having completed secondary education,
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AS A SEPARATE SUBJECT 713

should have some idea of the origin, nature and impact of scientific knowledge.
Therefore, the committee argued, these citizens should have insight into a scien-
tist’ s activities, e.g. designing and using models, developing theories, and carrying
out experiments. Moreover, they should be aware of the important scientific and
technological aspects of many political and social decisions in our society. The
committee summarized this by stating, in its two-page sketch, that the aim of
the new subject was to present the development of the big ideas in science and
technology in a historical, philosophical, economic and societal context.
Taken together, these four dimensions can be seen as constituting, in the
committee’ s vision, the criteria for adequately teaching the public understanding
of science as a separate subject in upper secondary education. The 1994 sketch
suggested the following six topics, not as prescribed themes but merely to illustrate
the committee’ s views: From Quark to Cosmos, Evolution and Heredity, Made-to-
measure Materials, Humankind and Nature, Knowledge is Power, and Global
Change.
It is clear from the documents concerning this visionary curriculum, as has
been emphasized repeatedly in public by members of the advisory committee, that
ANW was not supposed to teach science as an aim in itself. Instead, it would teach
students about science. It would confront students only with scientific knowledge
already taught in previous years, or, if necessary, offer new knowledge but only
within that wider framework. The question discussed in this paper is in what ways
and to what extent these intentions have been adhered to in the successive stages of
the curriculum development process. Other aspects of the introduction of ANW,
e.g. the recruitment and retraining of science teachers for the teaching of ANW,
teaching strategies, and problems related to assessment, will be dealt with in forth-
coming publications.

The designed curriculum

Towards the end of 1995, the syllabus committee completed a document contain-
ing 67 attainment targets divided into the following six domains (Timmermans
1996):
(A) skills;
(B) analysis and reflection;
(C) life;
(D) biosphere;
(E) matter;
(F) solar system and universe.
Domain A refers to general skills which are more or less the same for all subjects.
It will not be discussed in this paper. Specific aspects of the public understanding
of science are covered by domain B. This domain expects students to be able,
among other things, to explain, using examples, the following.

• How scientists obtain a specific kind of knowledge which, by its very

nature, is always limited and context bound.
• How humankind, making use of such scientific knowledge, designs useful
products and techniques, thereby applying functional, socio-economic and
ethical criteria.
714 W. DE. VOS AND J. REIDING

• How observation, theory formation and technology are influenced by each

other as well as by cultural, economic and political factors.
• How scientific knowledge influences our everyday life, our understanding
of nature and our role in nature.

The historical and philosophical contexts of the visionary curriculum seem to be

addressed in (i), (iii) and possibly (iv), and the economic and societal contexts in
(ii) and (iii). In addition, domain B also expects students to be able to take part in
discussions about applications of science and technology, thereby referring to
relevant scientific knowledge.
The domains C–F, together covering 23 attainment targets, seem to represent
the syllabus committee’ s view on the ’ big ideas’ from biology, chemistry and
physics. Some topics, including two already implied by the visionary curriculum,
viz. biological evolution (domain C) and the solar system (F), have possibly not
been taught to all students in previous years. The committee indicates that, as
analysis and reflection (domain B) cannot be separated from scientific content, C–
F are to provide the ’ cases’ in which these activities can find a concrete elaboration.
Where scientific knowledge as such is involved, the phrase often used is that
’ students are able, with the help of examples, to explain to laymen . . . ’ (e.g. that
living organisms, in spite of their differences, also have several specified common
characteristics). Although it could be argued that it is much more difficult for
citizens to understand a scientific issue than it is for scientists to understand the
same issue, the reference to citizens (laymen) apparently indicates that the expla-
nation does not have to fully satisfy the demands that a scientist would make.
It should be noted that the syllabus committee explicitly prescribes four con-
tent-oriented domains, separated from analysis and reflection (domain B) but
hierarchically equivalent in status, whereas the advisory committee merely sug-
gested six suitable topics to illustrate its views. As a result, the attainment targets
allow for two fundamentally different approaches to the development of teaching
material. In the first approach, which seems most consistent with the visionary
curriculum, the structuring of the material is determined by the various targets of
domain B, and elements from the domains C–F are brought up as cases or as
illustrations wherever they support the structure. This approach has been called
science transcending (Pieters 1997). In the second approach, the curriculum struc-
ture is determined by domains C–F, either or not in that order, elements from B
being introduced whenever appropriate. This approach, which might be called
science oriented, involves a risk of obscuring the specific identity of ANW as
distinct from the traditional science subjects, i.e. a risk of teaching (additional)
science rather than teaching about science.

The written curriculum

For pragmatic reasons, mainly the limited amount of time and facilities that were
available, the project group decided to adopt a science-oriented approach, and to
cover only about one-third of the content of each of the domains C–F. Four
development teams were appointed, each of which produced an experimental
teaching unit on one of the domains C–F, thereby also covering elements of
domain B. All team members had a background in one of the sciences. During
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AS A SEPARATE SUBJECT 715

the process of writing, the teams had little mutual contact about their activities,
but each team had extensive discussions with the project group.
The four units that were produced were entitled as follows.
(1) Life and survival (including evolution as well as health and illness, cf.
domain C).
(2) Caring for the biosphere (about models and scenarios of atmospheric
change illustrated by the greenhouse effect, cf. D).
(3) Creative with matter (about the insightful manipulation of matter, cf. E).
(4) Ideas about the universe (discussing heliocentric and geocentric models
of the universe, cf. F).
Because the material is not copyrighted, it can be used freely by teachers and
textbook authors. As part of the project, the first version of the units was tested
in the first semester of 1996 in 10 classes in five schools, after which, in a second
round, a revised version was produced.
In a science-oriented approach, the specific identity of ANW must be secured
through a unifying emphasis on analysis and reflection (domain B), or, in terms of
the visionary curriculum, through the common historical, philosophical, economic
and societal context. The project teams and the project group were well aware of
the identity problem associated with the science-oriented approach. In its evalua-
tion report (Eijkelhof et al. 1996) after the first round of classroom experiments,
published in October 1996, the project group noted that it had not been given
sufficient time and facilities to develop and implement a coherent overall approach
to teaching the public understanding of science as part of the project. The report
states that as a result students, in spite of having, in most cases, enjoyed the
experimental lessons, had often found themselves unable to put a meaning to
their activities. Several students, in interviews and questionnaires, demonstrated
incomprehension as to the reasons for having to perform certain activities, and as
to the relations between the various topics. A typical comment was ’ We made
paint; don’ t ask me why, but it was fun!’ A major conclusion drawn by Pieters
(1997) is that the students ’ have difficulties in recognizing the integrating identity
of ANW’ .
There is little coherence between the four units. Admittedly, the fourfold
context from the visionary curriculum figures in the teaching units, but each
context is introduced if, and only if, the topic under discussion can accommodate
it. Moreover, each team of authors made its own selection from domain B and
developed its own topic-determined interpretation of the contexts. The curriculum
therefore looks like a course in the natural sciences with excursions into historical,
societal and ethical issues. The identity problem is also reflected in the relationship
of ANW with the three traditional science subjects, viz. biology, chemistry and
physics. Science students may wonder what ANW has to offer in addition to the
three familiar science subjects. Those students who had decided not to continue
their studies of the natural sciences after Grade 9 might well be surprised, or even
disappointed, to find 200 h of ANW in their Grade 10 programme.
In an attempt, after the first round, to better coordinate the development
activities and to make the intentions of the visionary curriculum more operational,
the project group took two initiatives. It instructed the teams to design so-called
framework lessons to be taught before, during and after each unit in order to make
students better aware of the science transcending aspects of the course. In addi-
716 W. DE. VOS AND J. REIDING

tion, it defined, in everyday life language, the following four leading questions
(Monk and Osborne 1997) to which the teams were expected to adhere.
(1) Where does knowledge come from?
(2) How is knowledge used?
(3) How does one know whether something is true?
(4) Is everything allowed that is possible?
The historical and philosophical context of the visionary curriculum can be
recognized in Questions 1 and 3. Question 2 reflects, through its emphasis on
application of knowledge, a technological context which includes aspects of eco-
nomics. Question 4, which seems to address ethical and legal issues, can be seen as
a somewhat restricted interpretation of a societal context. The questions did not
structure the curriculum development process of the project as a whole in the
second round, but they were added to each team’ s agenda which itself was still
determined by the content of one of the domains C–F.
A report of the second round was published in February 1998 (Eijkelhof et al.
1998). It indicates that the framework lessons and the four guiding questions
introduced after the first round have only partly solved the identity problem.
The aimed-for identity of ANW, expressed in the function of the four dimensions
in the visionary curriculum and still echoed in the emphasis on analysis and reflec-
tion in domain B of the designed curriculum, has become problematic in the
written curriculum. In its second report, the project group calls for an identity
discussion in order to enable teachers to justify ANW to their students.

The published curriculum

Although there are important mutual differences, the content of books so far
available has clearly been structured according to the science-oriented approach.
In this respect, the publishers continue the line set by the project. The science-
related topics fit reasonably well within the scope of domains C–F of the syllabus.
Some typical topics are:

• forensic science (from finger print to DNA identification – domain C);

• sustainable development (D);
• the production of jam (E);
• navigation (F).
Some other topics refer to two or more domains simultaneously, e.g.:

• anti-conception pill (C and E);

• use of potatoes in past and present (D and E);
• light and colour (C, E and F).
As can be expected, the identity problem associated with the science-oriented
approach can also be recognized in the textbooks. Admittedly, historical, philoso-
phical, societal and economic issues receive ample attention. Students are invited
to engage in discussions, form opinions, and design posters. However, priority is
given in most chapters to presenting scientific information associated with the
topic under discussion, starting from the limited amount of science already taught
in previous years. The books contain a wealth of factual information, often leaving
it to the reader to distinguish between what is essential, and what is merely inter-
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AS A SEPARATE SUBJECT 717

esting or anecdotal. Clearly the authors have been very creative, but on the other
hand it becomes clear that they did not have at their disposal a coherent, well
thought out overall design that could act as a guideline throughout a book.
The lack of such a guideline, together with an apparent lack of time, results in
peculiar flaws in some of the books. An example within a science context is a
statement about the atmosphere of the primitive earth: ’ That from such an atmos-
phere life can emerge was proved by S. L. Miller in 1959’ suggesting that the quest
for the origin of life ended in the detection of amino acids in a laboratory experi-
ment. (Incidentally, Miller published this work in 1953.) In another example, a
textbook presents a structural formula of penicillin without indicating that the
complicated molecular structure of such a compound is somehow related to its
activity as an antibiotic. An example involving the relation between science and
society is a textbook stating bluntly that the first anti-conception pill was tested
in ’ over-populated Puerto Rico’ , thereby reducing the highly complex decision-
making process, including its (controversial) ethical and political aspects, to the
technical term ’ over-populated’ .

Discussion
Introducing the public understanding of science as a compulsory subject to be
taught by retrained science teachers is a rare, if not unique, decision. It is therefore
worthwhile to study its implications.
Separated from the three traditional science subjects, ANW is formally
relieved of the task of teaching the content of science as such. It is not tied to
existing curriculum structures and teaching traditions of the sciences and, having
its own agenda, it can even be satisfied with less than full understanding of science
content (’ . . . explain to citizens . . . ’ ). On the other hand, well-established curricu-
lum structures and teaching strategies, or even sheer content for teaching the
public understanding of science are not available in advance and so ANW has
not only the advantages of freedom but also the disadvantages. Besides, it should
take into account that although a majority of the students have dropped the tradi-
tional science subjects, reflection and analysis (domain B) always requires some
knowledge of science to analyse and reflect upon. This might help to explain why
much of the teaching material produced by the project and by the publishers has a
’ science plus’ structure, i.e. why it consists of fragments of a science curriculum
with added information on history, philosophy, society or economics.
A ’ science plus’ , or science-oriented approach will inevitably be confronted
with the fact that science is very complex, while the relation between science and
society is even more so. Such an approach in Grade 10 therefore calls for simpli-
fications. Trying to keep the menu digestible, the textbook authors almost ines-
capably resort to ignoring uncertainties, presenting models as facts, and adopting a
one-way relation between science and society. Especially simplified expressions of
reductionism, or pseudo-reductionism, abound in the textbooks, as is illustrated
by the examples mentioned above. (Reductionism itself has not been chosen as a
topic in ANW.)
On top of that, ANW itself has, in fact, a vast and highly diverse agenda of its
own. It raises existential questions about the position of humankind in the uni-
verse, it discusses the limitations of scientific methods, and it also explores every-
day life applications of technological inventions. It is not always possible to
718 W. DE. VOS AND J. REIDING

combine historical, philosophical, societal and economic aspects of science and

technology in one topic. The vast and diverse agenda and the apparent unavoid-
ability of additional science in the curriculum do not contribute to a clear picture
of the identity of ANW. In the trial period of the project, it was the teaching
strategies, e.g. class discussion, poster presentations, etc. rather than the curricu-
lum content, that provided ANW with its own special character in the eyes of
students as well as teachers. This special position is likely to disappear, however,
when, as planned, such teaching strategies are gradually introduced into other
subjects as part of the general reform in upper secondary education and it will,
therefore, not provide ANW with an identity.
If ANW continues with the science-oriented approach, it can be expected to
have one of two opposite effects on the teaching of science. On one hand, it can,
unintentionally, provide science teachers with an excuse for not, or no longer,
addressing historical, philosophical, societal and economical issues in their science
lessons: after all, such teachers could argue, that has now become a separate sub-
ject. On the other hand, ANW may well develop into a kind of test-bed for new
ideas that, if successful, may inspire the teaching of traditional science subjects.
Science teachers might be encouraged to enrich their usual approach with topics
and teaching strategies from ANW thereby implementing a gradual innovation
that would perhaps not easily have been achieved without ANW. However, ben-
eficial as such an effect might be, it would not justify the teaching of ANW to the
non-science students in Grade 10, and it would fall far short of achieving the aims
underlying the visionary curriculum.

Conclusion
Our main conclusion is that, if the public understanding of science is to survive as
a separate compulsory subject in upper secondary schools, it must develop a clear
identity that distinguishes it, in the eyes of students as well as teachers, unmistak-
ably from the traditional science subjects in school. This identity must provide the
subject with coherent aims, content and teaching strategies that are not simply of
the ’ science plus’ type. This ’ science plus’ , or science-oriented, approach to teach-
ing the public understanding of science has not yet led to establishing such an
identity. The experience in The Netherlands shows that once a science-oriented
approach is adopted, it becomes extremely difficult to escape from the shadows of
the science teaching tradition. Admittedly, public understanding of science taught
as a separate subject in a science-oriented approach can have a useful test-bed
function with respect to the (sometimes very) traditional science subjects, but it
is not an adequate basis for a permanent position as a compulsory subject in the
school curriculum. Public understanding of science taught as a subject in its own
right alongside the traditional sciences should be based on a ’ science transcending’
approach.
In 2003, a revision of the ANW attainment targets, and, indeed, a revaluation
of the general innovation in upper secondary education in The Netherlands has
been planned. Lessons learnt from the ANW experiences can then hopefully con-
tribute to further developments in promoting the teaching of public understanding
of science in secondary schools.
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AS A SEPARATE SUBJECT 719

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Professors H. M. C. Eijkelhof and H. Hooymayers for
comments on a draft of this article.

References
EIJKELHOF, H., KATERSTEDE , A., PIETERS, M. and TEEKENS-VELDKAMP, A. (1996) Algemene
Natuurwetenschappen: dingen die je vanzelfsprekend vindt, ga je hierbij onderzoeken
(Enschede/Utrecht: SLO/CD-beìta).
EIJKELHOF, H., DE JONG, O. and PIETERS, M. (1998) Ervaringen met het tweede versie ANW-
lesmateriaal (Enschede/Utrecht: SLO/CD-beìta).
GOODLAD, J. I. (ed.) (1979) Curriculum Inquiry (New York: McGraw-Hill).
MONK, M. and OSBORNE, J. (1997) Placing the history and philosophy of science on the
curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81, 405–
424.
PIETERS, M. (1997) De mens, materie, modellen, machten van tien: overwegingen bij een
leerplan Algemene Natuurwetenschappen. Tijdschrift voor Didactiek der b -
wetenschappen, 14, 128–148.
TIMMERMANS, P. (1996) Algemene Natuurwetenschappen, voorlichtingsbrochure havo/vwo
(Enschede: SLO).