Science adoption: evidence, trust, access and values — AC9S9H03

• Separate scientific evidence quality from social adoption.
• Analyse multiple factors influencing adoption of a practice.
• Use evidence to compare explanations for different uptake rates.
• Avoid reducing adoption to “people understand science” versus “people do not”.

Recall how claims are supported by evidence and that decisions may also involve cost, access, risk, ethics, communication, policy and values.

Adoption asks whether scientific knowledge or a science-based practice becomes widely accepted or used. Evidence matters, but adoption also depends on whether a practice is affordable, accessible, trusted, culturally acceptable, clearly communicated and supported by infrastructure or policy.

These factors can interact. Poor access can look like low acceptance; low trust can make good communication essential; high cost can prevent uptake even when people accept the evidence. Analyse evidence about the context before assigning a cause.

• Good evidence guarantees adoption. Adoption also depends on practical/social conditions.
• Low uptake proves people reject science. Check access, cost, infrastructure and competing priorities.
• Popularity proves scientific validity. Adoption and evidence quality are different questions.
• Values make a scientific claim true or false. Values can shape decisions; evidence supports scientific claims.

1. Sort factors into evidence, access, cost, trust, communication and values.
2. Explain why high scientific confidence may coexist with low uptake.
3. Given two communities, identify one confounding adoption factor.
4. Suggest evidence needed before blaming low uptake on misinformation.

1. Define adoption in this curriculum context.
2. Give four non-evidence factors that can influence uptake.
3. Distinguish trust from validity.
4. Analyse a case where cost limits adoption.
5. Explain how communication can affect use without changing scientific evidence.
6. Evaluate the claim “if a practice is not widely used, the science behind it must be weak”.

Two schools receive the same evidence-based recommendation. Uptake is 90% in one and 35% in the other. Develop at least three plausible explanations and design a small evidence collection plan that could distinguish among them.

1. Does evidence matter for adoption? Yes, but it is only one contributor.
2. What other factors matter? Trust, access, cost, risk, communication, infrastructure, values and policy.
3. Why compare contexts? Different barriers can produce similar uptake data.
4. Does popularity validate a claim? No; validity depends on evidence, not popularity.

1. Explain three factors that can affect adoption of a scientific practice.
   Show how each factor changes uptake, not just name it.
2. Analyse why two communities might adopt the same recommendation at different rates.
   Use multiple plausible factors and evidence.
3. Evaluate the claim that low adoption means weak scientific evidence.
   Separate the validity question from the adoption question.

• I separate evidence from adoption.
• I can analyse interacting factors.
• I can propose evidence to test an explanation.
• I avoid simplistic deficit explanations.

Exit ticket: Give one example where strong evidence could coexist with low adoption and explain why.

Australian Curriculum v9.0 — AC9S9H03: factors contributing to broader adoption of scientific knowledge and practices.

Victoria Levels 9–10 — VC2S10H03: Exact direct relationship.

NSW Stage 5 — SC5-DA2-01: Partial evidence-based decisions and verification of claims strongly support the lesson, but no identical adoption outcome exists.

• AC9S9H04 research priorities
• AC9S9I07 arguments

• Australian Curriculum v9.0
• Victorian Curriculum F–10 Version 2.0
• NSW Science 7–10 Syllabus (2023)

Curriculum equivalents for Analyse the key factors that contribute to science knowledge and...

Mapped skill: analyse the key factors that contribute to science knowledge and practices being adopted more broadly by society

These references identify matching or closely related learning. Curriculum sequence, terminology and depth vary, so teachers should use the mapped skill and lesson difficulty to confirm suitability.

Australian Curriculum v9.0 is the canonical source for this SkillrHub lesson. Victoria and NSW entries name the closest published state codes or outcomes; international entries are planning references rather than claims of identical curricula.