How do you think we should teach science in the UK? Feel free to support, disagree or question our contributors by leaving comments on their individual pages, but if you’d like to add your own answer, do so here or email Alom Shaha at alom.shaha(at)gmail.com if you’d like to appear on the front page.
So:
How should we teach science?
10 Comments
While I think that the physics (P3) edexcel module is very interesting and contemporary, it does not train pupils sufficiently to study physics at advanced level. Also, so much of it is theopretical, that it is difficult for pupils to do practical work. The whole edexcel course does lack practical work. Multi choice answers are a cop out by the exam board to save them paying people to mark the papers, and the IAAs save them money in printing.
I really wonder how pupils would cope with what many of us had to do, with having a terminal exam at the end of 2 years that was 2 or more hours long. It would actually be good to see that again. There are not enough long structured answers.
I have some sympathy with the above comments. The Core science was always supposed to be about educating the future citizen rather than developing future scientists, which I think it does rather well. The Additional science is good in terms of specification (although limited in some areas), but it is the assessment that is so poor. They have no chance, or need to develop any true understanding or critical thinking skills because of the exam style. Finally the Triple science specification is superb, it covers what used to be on the AS specification for Physics and Chemistry in places and is a superb platform for going on to do A level science, even though the assessment is still weak, the content is superb. Finally, as long as the Government make us play this stupid game there will be BTEC. The upside is the fact that, for the first time, we have at least some engagement with science and the reward of gaining some succes for our students who mostly are seen as failing by the outside world has got to be a positive thing.
The new GCSEs are basically political rubbish. I quit my post as a Head of Science & Physics in disgust, and I'm now emigrating. Who on earth is going to fill in a 30 minute questionnaire when QCA and the Government have clearly ignored all advice in the past? The Royal Society, The House of Lords select committee, the CBI are, to them, not worth listening to, so why would they listen to me? And of course, QCA know that. If you want to encourage discussion of current scientific issues, then you have to have sufficient knowledge for an intelligent discussion, which the current GCSEs do not provide. Any knowledgeable teacher used to include discussions anyway. The fundamental problem is that there aren't enough knowledgeable teachers (in physics anyway). What's more, this Noddy approach to science is driving away the remainder. How many are left? The Institute of Physics has just shut down its Education Group. The Government refuses to measure the numbers, and for a numbers-obsessed Government you know what that means.
Your nuclear power stations will be built by French and Canadian physicists and engineers. Your bridges by Chinese graduates. I know. I'm going to be teaching them. In China then Canada.
Bye!
I'm afraid I agree with Rick on the front page, I see nothing to indicate that government will listen to us at this level, which is very worrying. I'm new to teaching and teach Physics in Leeds, having thoroughly enjoyed GCSEs, A-Levels and then University (back in the 1990s). Sure the subject was difficult but I found the satisfaction of completing a particularly tough calculation almost tangible at the time and that very much kept my interest in the subject, whilst I was at school certainly, alive, the subject was fascinating enough in its own right once I got to University.
Now I see that the new syllabuses rely more and more on the discussion of science through 'how science works'. In many cases subject areas that used to be calculation heavy are now discussed in an historical context. This of course covers the subject so ministers can say that exams are no easier now than they used to be, but it takes out much of the science that I found so compelling whilst I was at school.
Granted some students will not engage with a more mathematically based subjects but in an effort to please 'All' the new syllabuses appear to please no one; students that would not have engaged anyway still don't, and those that may have found a more mathematical subject more stimulating look on nonplussed at a subject they now find rather dull.
As if to top it all off examinations reflecting this new era of discussion contain questions that are confusing at best, requiring a student to try and second guess what a question is getting at before answering it! It drives me spare!
The sooner the government realise that science is science, contains some difficult mathematics and that some students actually thrive on this kind of subject the sooner we will be out of this mess. When some universities now insist on a foundation year before accepting students to a physics course it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that standards have fallen!
I am very glad that there is now some movement at the 'grass roots' level on this front. I can only hope that this is the beginning of a movement that will get louder and louder until it is heard. As I said at the top I'm not convinced the government is ready to listen, which is wildly surprising since one of the things that is at stake is the future technical development of this country, but that certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't try. This campaign is of course not just about the country it is also about the thousands of future scientists that could miss out on a very rewarding career due to a lack of a quality foundation in these wonderful subjects.
Rant over! Many thanks, Jamie
When I taught chemistry A-levels as a private tutor, I noticed that schools were tripping over themselves to offer the easiest exam boards. The separate boards have an incentive to offer easier exams than their competitors. The result is horrific grade inflation.
Wouldn't a single, government monopoly exam board eliminate this tendency to easier exams?
Fully in agreemant with the last comment about a single exam board.
I am getting fed up with teh emphasis on teaching "skills", particularly "Thinking Skills" in the absence of any specified content. Read Daniel T Willilngham to find out more about teh importance of content.
I fequently get angry at departmnent meetings when we have this year's version of "what the chief examiner really meant about the internal assessment criteria" explained to us. Surely if they print a specification, that's what we use. A particularly annoying one this year was about using 2mm square graph paper, something about it being easier for the moderator to judge accuracy.
There's a lot of potential in Chemistry for the students to gain lots of knowledge (and skills!) while having a really enjoyable time, but by the time they've got to year 9 most of out students are only interested in getting the next level - any enjoyment they ever had at learning something new for teh sake of it, in whatever subject, has been knocked out of them. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that their school's reputation is judged on their results, the pressure on the school is transferred to the teachers and the teachers don't want to risk doing anything that might not succeed instantly. In fact it's so bad that the last time I had to observe lessonsas part of department reviews in my previous job, three out of four lessons had understanding the assessment criteria as part (all in one case) of the learning objectives. A younger colleague who went on some lesson observation training recently said theat the video'd lesson tehy used, officially labelled "outstanding" by OFSTED, consisted of little after the first short task beyond the students looking at each others' work, deciding what level it was and working out how to get to the next level. Admittedly it was a Geography lesson but if that's outstanding teaching I think I'm in the wrong job.
Perhaps Rick would like to give us a link to some emigration advice?
I'm partway through a science PGCE and am seriously thinking of going into the private sector having seen the present and impending assessment methods in the state sector.
As well as the obsession with peer assessment and the way science works, my present school has a policy of all staff teaching all sciences at all levels, on the grounds that it is the quality of the teaching that matters, not the content. As a result, pupils are being taught GCSE physics by a biologist who does not understand physics GCSE, while there are very good physicists teaching her subject. While this may be wandering off the subject of assessment, to me it perfectly illustrates the importance that this school (and presumably others) gives to a solid understanding of science, and why I am doubting my place within such a system.
I teach A level Biology at a sixth form college.
Point1:
We have steadily seen a decline,over the past 10 years or so [since Curriculum 2000] in the ability of our students to work independently. [This is a generalisation as there are always excellent students.]
I have often wondered if this is due to the pressure on schools to spoon feed their pupils with endless easy worksheets and 'fun' activities meant to stimulate them to think, but sadly not to work - by themsleves, concentrating and focusing on a tricky topic.
We have a Taster Day in July for the just finished kids to come and try out their chosen subjects to see if they will really like them after all. They come from schools all over our region and vary tremendously in terms of their science experience - from schools that only offer the Applied Science GCSE [which it NOT suitable preparation for A level Science courses!] to those with triple sciences and Core and Additional. They were very happy playing with enzymes and classification but the crunch always seemed to come when they had to do calculations or apply themselves to a problem- just as previous writers have noted.
We also teach Environmental Studies [Still a science!!] and I must say that many of the students who came along to experience this really faultered with the maths and in fact, more importantly,did not seem to want to apply themselves to the task. Sadly they still will try to do the subject and struggle from start to finish.
Point 2: class size. I know many teachers feel that they can deliver stimulating and demanding lessons to 30 students where all will gain from the lesson. I am not one of those, sadly, and find at A level with 22 in a class that the individual student is often lost in group activities. The best thing that government and the education depatment could do to spark our children into science would be to have classes of max 18 at GCSE with loads of opportunity to experiment, problem solve and explore with a teacher that is fresher and motivated to encourage them. Make each pupil feel they are an individual!
I completely agree with the aims of this project.
My gut response to the proposals outlined is: how can we tackle or circumvent the obstacles to implementing the outlined goals? Particularly regarding:
1) Creating and funding incentives with longevity - not spin & sticking plasters - to recruit, educate and retain high-calibre science teachers, particularly physical scientists.
2) Hammering out the ability-defined pathways themselves; anti-elitism vs. ability and overcoming the invariable ruckus that defining such pathways alone would arouse.
3) Designing curricula that contain all the important content for each pathway, selected appropriately to not result in a rushed curriculum lacking in time for excitement or skills development.
3) Fair and transparent methods to decide which pathway each individual pupil would then take, common across all schools.
By no means do I wish to pour cold water (debated the good ol' saying about urination and bonfires then, but decided too stereotypically "biologist" for a group of physicists!) on this. For all the reasons outlined and several more I utterly concur that we have to get off our well-grooved marking chairs and start doing something effective. It is a mammoth task but to admit defeat to the apparent obstacles cited - government, democracy, finance, culture, amongst others - means that we remain stuck in a society where science is in decline whilst in other countries it is accelerating rapidly. You have succinctly outlined what I believe many colleagues in science education have been thinking for years. My feeling simply is that we need to get on to changing things as soon as possible. I would be happy to help in any way that I can.
I agree with most of the comments here and would add, in relation to competitive exam boards that the moral hazard is similar for accounting firms (remember Enron) and also for credit rating agencies (think current sovereign debt crisis).