Vitalism in New Zealand science education (in Science Magazine)

Panda’s Thumb readers may recall my 2022 post on the controversy in New Zealand about the the NZ Ministry of Education sticking the concept of “mauri” into the high school Chemistry/Biology curriculum.

As I said at the time, this content was a big problem scientifically, as it was inserting vitalism into basic chemistry. I also made a prediction which some were skeptical of, that it would eventually have to be taken out. In October 2022, Paul Kilmartin, the chemistry professor whose talk I quoted, published a detailed analysis of the issue in the journal Chemistry in New Zealand. Richard Dawkins and others eventually commented. In early 2024, Science published a Policy Forum article, by Black and Tyliankankis, “Teach Indigenous knowledge alongside science,” which cited Dawkins’s critique and rebutted it by proclaiming the virtues of the Ministry of Education’s policy of “Mana ōrite: equal status for mātauranga Māori.” However, Black and Tyliankankis left out any discussion of Dawkins’s mention of vitalism, or indeed any discussion of the controversy over the mauri/vitalism issue.

I viewed this as pretty misleading, especially because, in late 2022, the Ministry of Education’s mana ōrite policy began to come crashing down, at least for science education. Mauri and a variety of other material was stripped out, the schedule for the rollout of the NCEA Level 1 science curriculum (15-16 year olds) was pushed back by years (it looks like the whole approach may be being scrapped by the new government, elected in late 2023; NCEA Levels 2 and 3 have been pushed back by several more years), and several other scandals involving the science curriculum reform hit the news in 2023-2024.

To inform Science’s readership about some of the problems, I wrote a response letter which has just been published. Another response was also published by a group of New Zealand scientists and academics (Adhar et al. 2024), along with a reply from Black and Tylianakis.

I paste the final text of my letter below. Here is a link to free access to my and other letters: https://www.science.org/stoken/author-tokens/ST-1981/full

(Asides: (1) Unfortunately, some copyediting misadventure occurred after my last look at the proof; I clarify after the main text. (2) I have added the full references for google-ability. (3) If it had been up to me, I would not have italicized “mauri” except for the first non-quoted instance. I follow my preference below.)

Vitalism in New Zealand science education

NICHOLAS J. MATZKE
SCIENCE
11 Jul 2024
Vol 385, Issue 6705
p. 152

DOI: 10.1126/science.ado6728

A. Black and J. M. Tylianakis ("Teach Indigenous knowledge alongside science," Policy Forum, 9 February, p. 592) give an overly rosy picture of New Zealand's policy of "mana ōrite," or equal status for mātauranga Māori, in science education, which they say teaches Indigenous knowledge "alongside" science rather than "as" science. They suggest that this policy avoids problems such as teaching creationist myths in science class. However, the New Zealand Ministry of Education placed supernatural content directly into science and math curricula with no clarification that it was nonscientific material.

The chemistry curriculum required students to "recognise that mauri is present in all matter which exists as particles held together by attractive forces" (1), with a glossary that defined mauri as "[t]he vital essence, life force of everything." This concept, known as vitalism, has long been debunked (2). Teaching concepts that directly conflict with empirical evidence undermines the goals of science education. Dozens of science teachers opposed the inclusion of mauri in the chemistry curriculum, but the Ministry steamrolled their objections, citing "the requirement for mana ōrite" (1). The objective was only removed after 18 months of controversy, at a time when the 2023 election was looming. The Ministry, ignoring vitalism's evidentiary flaws, claimed the reversal occurred because inserting concepts such as mauri into science curricula ran the "risk of recolonisation" (3), despite the fact that mana ōrite's entire rationale was decolonization.

Problems remain in 2024. Despite its removal from exam objectives, mauri remains in the chemistry curriculum, in which students are told, "Revisit the concept of mauri (giftofthegulf.org.nz/mauri [in the publication, ref. 4 was substituted for the link]). This learning can sit beside learnings in atomic theory" (5), and the Gulf Innovation Fund Together website (4) says that mauri is "the force that interpenetrates all things to bind and knit them together." A math qualification on practical problems of "life in...the Pacific" asks trigonometry students to calculate how much flaxen rope the demigod Maui made to lasso the Sun, slowing it to lengthen the day (6). The text of the exercise is studiously agnostic about the literal truth of this story, describing it as a "narrative." Black and Tylianakis might categorize this as teaching Indigenous knowledge alongside math, but teachers face the prospect of strife among students over whether it is appropriate to call it knowledge or myth and if students of various backgrounds are expected to defend or disclaim its verity.

Black and Tylianakis provide some examples of cases in which Indigenous knowledge can unproblematically sit alongside science, such as uses of a particular plant. However, the Ministry's failure to avoid supernatural content indicates that the mana ōrite policy operated with a postmodern relativist philosophy that gave equal status to poorly evidenced ideas. If the policy goal is cross-cultural understanding and appreciation of Māori interests, values, philosophy, and worldview, then the curriculum should include a nonscience class or unit that provides an overview of the traditional worldview as an integrated belief system and also gives due attention to the diversity of beliefs among Māori today.

References

1. Paul Kilmartin (2022). Mātauranga Māori and chemistry teaching: 'mauri is present in all matter.' Chemistry in New Zealand. 86, 157 (2022). https://nzic.org.nz/unsecure_files/cinz/2022-86-4.pdf

2. Peter J. Ramberg (2000). The Death of Vitalism and The Birth of Organic Chemistry: Wohler's Urea Synthesis and the Disciplinary Identity of Organic Chemistry. Ambix 47, 170 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1179/amb.2000.47.3.170

3. Sara Tolbert, Rosemary Hipkins, Bronwen Cowie, Pauline Waiti (2024). Epistemic agency, Indigenous knowledge, and the school science curriculum: reflections from Aotearoa New Zealand. International Journal of Science Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2356229 (2024).

4. Gulf Innovation Fund Together (GIFT), "What is Mauri?" (2020); https://www.giftofthegulf.org.nz/mauri .

5. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2024); https://ncea.education.govt.nz/science/chemistry-and-biology?view=teaching . Download "CB Level 1 Course Outline 3" and see page 3.

6. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2024); Mathematics and Statistics / Assessment / 1.2 / Activities / Activity A / Ko Māui me te Rā: Ākonga will use mathematics to explore the pūrākau of how Māui and his brothers slowed down Tama-nui-te-rā.
https://ncea.education.govt.nz/mathematics-and-statistics/mathematics-and-statistics/1/2?view=activities .


RELATED LETTERS

Black, Amanda; Tylianakis, Jason M. (2024). Teach Indigenous knowledge alongside science. Science, 383(6683), 592-594. February 9, 2024.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.adi9606
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi9606

Ahdar, Rex; Boyd, Brian; Chaudhuri, Ananish; Clements, Kendall D.; Cooper, Garth; Elliffe, Douglas; Gill, Brian; Gray, Russell D.; Hamilton-Hart, Natasha; Lillis, David; Matthews, Michael; Raine, John; Rata, Elizabeth; Schwerdtfeger, Peter (2024). World science and Indigenous knowledge. Science, 385(6705), 151-152. July 12, 2024.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.ado6679
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ado6679

Matzke, Nicholas J. (2024). Vitalism in New Zealand science education. Science, 385(6705), 152. July 12, 2024.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.ado6728
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ado6728
Free link: https://www.science.org/stoken/author-tokens/ST-1981/full

Black, Amanda; Tylianakis, Jason M. (2024). Vitalism in New Zealand science education -- Response. Science, 385(6705), 152-3. July 12, 2024.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.ado9278
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ado9278

Typo issue

Published version:

Problems remain in 2024. Despite its removal from exam objectives, mauri remains in the chemistry curriculum, in which students are told, "Revisit the concept of mauri" (4). This learning can sit beside learnings in atomic theory" (5), and the Gulf Innovation Fund Together website (4) says that mauri is "the force that interpenetrates all things to bind and knit them together."

Nick Matzke says: This sentence somehow got garbled in a final copyedit, after my last look at the proof. Presumably this was due to there being a link in the original verbatim quote.

The original read (using the published citation numbers):

Despite its removal from exam objectives, mauri remains in the chemistry curriculum, in which students are told, "Revisit the concept of mauri (giftofthegulf.org.nz/mauri). This learning can sit beside learnings in atomic theory," (5) and the link (4) says that mauri is "the force that interpenetrates all things to bind and knit them together."

Brief further comments

I think the response by Black and Tylianakis mostly speaks for itself. Critical issues remain unaddressed, including the importance of evidence for the content taught in science classes, the definitions of knowledge versus belief, how the problems of postmodern relativism can be avoided, and what the heck actually happened to produce the Ministry of Education’s mauri-in-chemistry curriculum episode of 2021.

If both scientists and Mātauranga Māori experts were actually against mauri-in-chemistry, how the heck did it get in? Why were the objections of science teachers – in the end, well-informed and correct objections – overridden by the Ministry of Education, specifically by referencing the “mana ōrite” policy? Why did it take 18 months to make the correction? Why wasn’t the correction actually done thoroughly, instead of some of this material being reintroduced via example materials, still online in 2024?

The Ministry of Education touted an extensive series of expert review committees to advise the NCEA Change Process, including specifically experts on Mātauranga Māori. In addition to the Subject Expert Groups (SEG), which provided the expertise on science content for NCEA, the Ministry of Education quite publicly announced an elaborate feedback system for drafting the new curriculum. It included these formal entities to provide expertise and expert feedback:

Te Whakaruruhau - Mātauranga Māori experts
NCEA Māori Panel
Māori Pathways Advisory Group
NCEA Mātauranga Māori Expert Reviewers

The descriptions are online here: https://curriculumtimelines.education.govt.nz/sector-reach-advice-and-input/

Here’s my guess. I think what actually happened is that a lot of people at the Ministry of Education thought that including mauri in chemistry was a great idea and an instance of implementing the mana ōrite policy. Experts were either not consulted, or didn’t realize the embarrassing scientific problems that would result. Ministry staff who were skeptical either kept quiet, or were overridden, in the highly ideological environment that prevails in many academic and governmental institutions, especially in 2020-2021. Initial objections from science teachers were overridden as just being objections from colonialist-hangover sticks in the mud, people with objections to be swept aside in the coming decolonialisation revolution.

Finally, once the curriculum was online publicly, scientists objected, the story went international, and it became sufficiently embarrassing that higher-ups at the Ministry of Education, and experts, took another look and re-thought it, resulting in partial corrections in late 2022.

Then, with the 2023 election looming, the retroactive explanation started, with Rosemary Hipkins (cited above; and, coincidentally, mother of Chris Hipkins, Minister of Education from 2017-2023 and New Zealand’s Prime Minister from January 2023 through to the election loss in October 2023) proffering the “recolonisation” explanation for why mauri-in-chemistry was bad. Rosemary Hipkins first made this claim in PLD training sessions for teachers in early 2023 (PLD sessions – Professional Learning and Development). (The mauri/recolonisation discussion occurs at about minute 19.) In May 2024, the same recolonisation claim is made in the publication of Tolbert, Hipkins et al. 2024, cited above.

Black and Tylianakis introduce another, different explanation, “The change was made because of inappropriate and inadequate references supporting its use.” But how could this have possibly happened, with all of the expert advice the Ministry of Education had recruited? It’s not like scientists were begging for mauri to be included in chemistry!

Also, are Black and Tylianakis saying that giftofthegulf.org.nz/mauri, cited in several places in NCEA Level 1 materials pertaining to mauri (from 2021-present), is actually an “inappropriate and inadequate reference”? Are they saying the speakers in the giftofthegulf.org.nz/mauri webpages/videos are making incorrect statements of mātauranga Māori when they endorse (several times) interpretations of mauri involving molecular forces and vibrations?

As for the legend of Maui and the Sun, this requires a longer post. Briefly, I agree that the story could have truths and/or value in the sense of its literary, cultural, artistic (etc.) aspects. But (a) if so, why is none of this mentioned in the cited Maths curriculum as it was posted online? (b) Why would this be useful or important in a trigonometry assignment in a math class? (c) What are the grand nonliteral truths of this story? It’s a nice story, my daughters have already learned it in New Zealand daycare. But the purpose of a curriculum is to explain what the learning objectives are and how the material gets students there, not to leave everyone guessing. (d) Are Black and Tylianakis prepared to say that, yes, parts of Mātauranga Māori are legend and myth, and that is it OK for teachers, students, and scientists to say so, when it really does appear to be the case? (Cases of legends with some historical truth are a different matter.) There is tremendous pushback in New Zealand against the phrase “myths and legends”, so speaking the plain truth on these matters seems to often be viewed very negatively.

And finally, (e) How does any of this help students learn trigonometry?