2. Vision and philosophy
Science and technology are intrinsically linked, and includes design and technology, engineering, computer science, biology, chemistry and physics.
Science and Technology demands a coherent framework for learning across traditional domains, reflecting real-world needs.
The underlying concepts of science and computational thinking enable technological advancement.
Science and Technology supports progression in and across subject specialisms, and prepares learners to use science and technology in their every day lives.
Could science be organised separate to design and technology and computing, thus creating a seventh area of learning and experience? Would computation better sit with Mathematics and Numeracy? These are difficult questions, particularly as Science and Technology is by nature a vast and growing area of learning. However, on balance Successful Futures recommended that they are organised together in this way due to the inextricable links between these traditional and, in some respects, historical subject domains. This is also evident in the way the what matters statements interact but that’s for later on.
What is key here is that curriculum development – and resulting learning and teaching – should not start from a premise that these are separate and distinct subject ‘silos’ within this area of learning and experience. Collaborative development and looking across what matters statements in Science and Technology is essential for this area of learning and experience to function effectively as a key aspect of schooling.
Experiences through design, discovery and innovation generate curiosity and creativity, which can enable deep learning. Bringing science and technology together as an area of learning facilitates meaningful collaborative and coherent local curriculum development, and that collaborative approach to the curriculum can result in better engaged learners and enhanced learning experiences.

3. The rationale for change
Boundaries of science and technology are continuously changing.
Economic imperative – huge opportunities for learners.
Need for learners to meet twenty-first century challenges and opportunities irrespective of career choice.
Current learner preparation insufficient to meet needs.
Need knowledge and skills – contextualised through experiences.
Need creators of and through technology, not just competent users – hence conceptual understanding of computation.
Successful Futures makes a compelling case for change. Also many practitioners – from the primary and secondary sector – have voiced concerns over current curriculum arrangements.
Enhanced knowledge and understanding of the world through science and technology forms an important part of our culture and economy. And there is an economic imperative to develop more STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills and knowledge in Wales and across the UK – that’s a given. STEM study gives greater chances of finding rewarding work, and better salaries, right across the ability range.
Perceptions regarding STEM (including gender stereotyping – worth noting) can start at a very early age so it is essential that we engage all learners in science and technology from an early age. What could be more exciting and motivating than learning about ourselves and the world in which we live?
In a world of fast-paced science and technology development, as well as increasing amounts of information presented as fact, there is an imperative to ensure a baseline of science and technology understanding. We need to equip all learners, no matter whether they take up further STEM-related learning or careers, so they can thrive and survive in a science and technology driven world.
PISA and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other comparators (e.g. labour market information, skills needs assessments, learner progression data) are also flagging the need for young people to have greater science and technology understanding.
PISA science does require good literacy – and it does look at critical and contextual thinking skills – but PISA also requires a strong base of scientific knowledge. You need a good knowledge base on which to think critically. There shouldn’t be debate between this being a ‘skills’ or a ‘knowledge’ curriculum – that’s a false dichotomy. For Science and Technology both are needed in balance, with real-world experiences helping learners contextualise learning and recognise the value of it. There is a recognised body of knowledge and a rage of skills needed here – that is best developed from the early years through to age 16.

4. How is it different? Computation is a new element for ages 3 to 16.
Guided learner-led approaches and ‘thematic’ learning.
Better balance between knowledge acquisition and skills development through real-world learning experiences.
Likely to require a multidisciplinary approach.
More seamless transitions – with greater clarity over prior learning and next steps.
Outdoor learning to enhance the learning experience.
Emphasis on the impacts of science and technology on learners’ lives and the environment.  
Computation is a new area to meet the needs of a changing twenty- first century culture and economy. It extends beyond digital competence, but does not replace it. Digital competence remains a cross-curricular responsibility. Computation is not a new name for information and communication technology (ICT) or computational thinking – it will build conceptual understanding that learners need to become creators of and through technology. Focus on concepts should allow the curriculum nationally to remain in currency in this fast-paced area of society.  
Effective experiential learning from ages 3 to 16 takes into account the good practice in Foundation Phase and extends across the continuum. Learner input in their learning is most effective when professionalism and expertise ensures progression and rigour is key to activities. It offers a more holistic approach when working thematically – curriculum development can ensure a rich learning experience. However, discrete teaching still has its place in Science and Technology, as does specialist teaching in later learning. Balance is needed between discrete and thematic approaches (see the 12 pedagogical principles in Successful Futures).
Some strands of progression in Science and Technology do not start at Progression step 1 or 2. Early steps can build foundations of learning towards some complex concepts later, but others are introduced when considered developmentally appropriate.
Authentic learning experiences are enhanced through links with the local community, industry, businesses and other relevant organisations. There are whole-school advantages to such approaches but these are particularly relevant to Science and Technology. Equally, it’s essential that learners are given space to develop their procedural understanding and the scientific base for considering the implications of our actions on each other and the world.

5. What Matters in Science and Technology
Being curious and searching for answers helps further our understanding of the natural world and helps society progress.
Design thinking and engineering are technical and creative endeavours intended to meet society’s needs and wants.
The world around us is full of living things which depend on each other for survival.
Understanding the atomic nature of matter and how it shapes the world.
Forces and energy determine the structure and dynamics of the universe.
Computation applies algorithms to data in order to solve real-world problems.
What matters statements in Science and Technology explain the main thrust of the teaching and the implications of pedagogy involved.
The first – looking at curiosity and searching for answers, alongside the implications of Science and Technology – is designed to be integral to all other what matters statements.
There are also multiple relationships between what matters statements within the area of learning and experience – and across other areas of learning and experience. This is by design and it is key that school-level curriculum development looks across what matters statements and does not consider them in isolation or as silos of learning.
Feedback on what matters statements from practitioners from other areas of learning and experience in January 2019 noted the following.
Liked clarity and accessibility of six what matters statements – provided good rationale for aspects of learning and focus for curriculum development.
Liked the ‘stranding approach’ (progression in each what matters area is broken down into ‘strands’ of learning across progression steps) as they highlight learning progression and useful support for teachers.
Like the way the links have been made with other areas of learning and experience.
Like the approach of how the what matters statements must be used together to be meaningful.
Like that meaning and understanding is added to content – and how it can be applied across multidisciplinary areas.

6. How did we get here? Approach
Collaborative work and research to create and trial different ideas; substantial expert advice. 
Experiments with a thematic approach using traditional subjects in five broad what matters statements limited progression and opportunities for specialist study later on.
Agreed approach is based on principles in ‘Big Ideas of Science’.
Agreed result is six interrelated what matters statements that are more accessible for all teachers, facilitating broad and specialist learning.
Multiple iterations of the what matters statements were tested within the Pioneer Group, which proved to be a tricky process with different evidence and inputs provided, sometimes conflicting. Balanced judgements have been made, staying true to the Successful Futures vision, with the resulting what matters statements being well received by non-Science and Technology pioneer practitioners who considered pre-release of drafts. A lot of positive feedback from wider groups too, including the Curriculum and Assessment Group.
Progression of learning is now far clearer in the current structure of the area of learning and experience than in early iterations of what matters statements. Those early approaches didn’t provide the clarity (or spotlight) on key Science and Technology concepts which form the basis of progression work.
It is worth noting that the more ‘domain’-specific what matters statements do not capture all of the traditional subjects; they are selective in what is considered essential for learning progression in key concepts. They place a ‘spotlight’ on what is the essence of ‘what matters’ in learning. Schools are free to go beyond if desired, but may prefer to create more ‘space’ for deeper conceptual understanding in the areas presented, and gradual development of learner ‘agility’ to transfer learning to wider contexts.
Professor Wynne Harlen's work on ‘Big Ideas of Science Education' was highly influential – leading to what matters statements as organisers for the whole curriculum. Her approach for science was also the concept adopted by the area of learning and experience to have more domain-specific statements ‘of’ science and technology alongside one ‘about’ science and technology which pulls the whole together. Within that statement ‘about’ science and technology there are essential aspects – such as the implications of science and technology clearly flagged and should be exploited throughout learning – not seen as discrete ‘bolt-ons’.

7. Evidence and expert input
Evidence and expert input in specific areas include the following.
Practitioners: Pioneers and non-pioneers, regional consortia advisors, further education.
Big Ideas of Science and principles for progression: Professor Wynne Harlen.
Big Ideas of Design and Technology: Dr David Barlex and Torben Steeg.
Computational concepts: Professor Crick, Professor Moller – Swansea University.
Science and Technology in Wales: Professor Tucker/Learned Society of Wales.
There were huge amount of inputs considered by the pioneer group for this area of learning – too many to list here. The slide provides the key contributors.
Some key documents are already available in the public domain and some are also being translated.
Some reading/references for Science and Technology include the following.
Big Ideas of Science Education and Working with Big ideas of Science by Harlen, et al. – for primary and secondary.
Big Ideas of D&T – for primary and secondary.
Estyn thematic reviews (KS2–3 science 2013/KS2 science and technology 2017) – both key messages for primary in particular.
Qualifications Wales’ ICT review – for secondary.
National Network for Excellence in Science and Technology (NNEST) zone on Hwb – both primary and secondary.
Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry, Royal Society of Biology curriculum publications – for primary and secondary.
Explorify resources from Wellcome Trust – for primary.
Technocamps provision, Computing at School resources, CodeClubUK resources, Barefoot resources.
The following is also recommended.
The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools – 7th Edition by Professor Wynne Harlen (2018) – principles and approaches are relevant to secondary too, plus a STEM approach in primary.

8. Evidence and expert input
Evidence and expert input in specific areas include the following.
International curricula considered: Estonia, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, USA, British Columbia, Singapore, Ontario, Finland and Scotland.
Expert advice and inputs: Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry, Royal Society of Biology, Wellcome Trust, DATA, Estyn, higher education institutes (Cardiff Met, Cardiff, Swansea, Bangor, Glasgow, Stirling, University of Wales Trinity St David, Aberdeen), Engineering UK, Qualifications Wales.
There were huge amount of inputs considered by the pioneer group for this area of learning – too many to list here. The slide provides the key contributors.
Some key documents are already available in the public domain and some are also being translated.
Some reading/references for Science and Technology include the following.
Big Ideas of Science Education and Working with Big ideas of Science by Harlen, et al. – for primary and secondary.
Big Ideas of D&T – for primary and secondary.
Estyn thematic reviews (KS2–3 science 2013/KS2 science and technology 2017) – both key messages for primary in particular.
Qualifications Wales’ ICT review – for secondary.
National Network for Excellence in Science and Technology (NNEST) zone on Hwb – both primary and secondary.
Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry, Royal Society of Biology curriculum publications – for primary and secondary.
Explorify resources from Wellcome Trust – for primary.
Technocamps provision, Computing at School resources, CodeClubUK resources, Barefoot resources.
The following is also recommended.
The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools – 7th Edition by Professor Wynne Harlen (2018) – principles and approaches are relevant to secondary too, plus a STEM approach in primary.

9. Considerations for schools
How will your leaders, practitioners and networks be able to prepare for the next phase of co-construction and provide meaningful feedback?
What, if any, are the resourcing implications (national and local)?
How could you approach whole-school and/or inter-departmental approaches to both: – knowing about the new curriculum? – understanding how to do the new curriculum?

10. Considerations for schools
Primary: expectations for learning in this area of learning and experience may cause some staff initial concern. How will you plan to mitigate that? Will specific professional learning be needed?
Secondary: expectation that learners will have access to subject-specialist teachers as they progress. How will you facilitate this in your school?
Consider the breadth of the area of learning and experience and how you will manage the new computation element. What is needed to ensure the success of this?
What are the resource implications for your school arising from this particular area of learning and experience?
Revisit Successful Futures (including twelve pedagogical principles) and other available relevant documents, including the Big Ideas of Science, and the Big Ideas of D&T.  
Exploit collaborative approaches provided via regional consortia – build your local networks at different tiers in staffing.
Time to consider the impact and pedagogy behind Successful Futures, before detailed review of the area of learning requirements.
Secondary heads of department in particular need to collaborate early on – are they brought together to do that?
What resources do you have locally outside of school? Local business/organisations/parents/carers to help enhance learning experiences.
What skills do all your staff have? What more might they need? Start planning and accessing up skilling opportunities now.
There is a huge range of support for STEM learning – lots of it free to schools – decide what you need then shop around/ask regional consortia.
Exploit Hwb (including National Network for Excellence in Science and Technology Zone) to start project/theme/STEM approach to learning.
Timetabling will likely come up – but should fall out of collaborative planning, not set before curriculum development happens.
Multidisciplinary and thematic approaches can create ‘space’ to enhance Science and Technology learning experiences (and those in other areas of learning and experience) if they are well thought through. Keep a watch on cross-curricular and inter-dependent aspects to avoid duplication and truly create that space for ‘new’ aspects of learning, and development of new approaches.
Funding, facilities and organising groupings needs careful consideration.