This section gives some examples of how the principles and teaching methods can be combined to teach a particular topic. Since this is designed to be a "pre-A-level" course, the content is that of the National Curriculum (NC).
Important topics, not presently in the NC can be found at:Additional material.
Both sets of aims, developed earlier, are applicable to the serious science pupil:
Sample topics
For sample material use the navigation under the Curriculum: Contents tab.
Supporting Theories
For pupils to be considered as "scientists" and able to tackle A-level science, they need to be familiar with the main explanatory frameworks" or theories used by scientists. It is essential that new knowledge is built around theory and not as a set of facts.
This table lists the main theories applicable to school and links them to content.
The theories are:
Theory | used in | Explanation | Example |
---|---|---|---|
Atomic theory 1:Particles | particles | treating atoms and molecules as elastic spheres | kinetic motion of gases |
Atomic theory 2: Bonding | chemical reactions | that chemical bonds are formed by sharing or exchanging electrons | covalent bonding |
Atomic theory 3: Radioactivity | particles | that some nuclei are unstable and decay | carbon dating |
Electron flow theory | electricity | that electricity is a flow of electrons | electronics, motors |
Conservation of mass | particles | that matter is not created or destroyed | the mass of the reactants is the same as the mass of the products |
Conservation of energy | energy | that energy is not created or destroyed | the energy in a hot object is lost to its surroundings as it cools |
Cell theory | organisms | living things are made of cells, too small to see | complex organisms have a range of specialist cells |
Germ theory | human health | many diseases are caused by microscopic organisms | the flu virus, food poisoning |
Theory of evolution | genetics/biosphere | that new species evolve by natural selection | the variety of life |
Genetic theory | genetics | that the organism is determined by the structure of its DNA | inherited characteristics, plant breeding, cloning |
Gaia theory | biosphere | that the Earth's ecosystem is a self-regulating entity | constant level of oxygen in the atmosphere |
Theory of gravity | forces and motion | that all matter attracts all other matter | evolution of stars and planets. |
Laws of motion | forces and motion | that the effects of forces is predictable and can be calculated | acceleration, circular motion |
Big bang theory | planets and the universe | that the origin of the universe was an explosion 14bn yrs ago | red-shift, galaxy formation |
Plate tectonics theory | planets and the universe | that the surface of the Earth is broken into moving plates | proximity of ocean trenches and volcanoes |
Wave theory | waves | that energy can travel without a net movement of material | EM spectrum, tsunami |
Reasoning: Too often a "content centered" curriculum fails to build the foundations of a concept and pupils are left learning facts. "Theories" are simple statements which bring together a wide range of facts under a single explanatory story. This mimics the way the brain classifies and stores information. Pupils report : "I didn't have to learn it, because I understood it".
Many excellent teachers "go back to basics" at the beginning of a new topic rather than following the Scheme of Work.
Navigation to contents pages
Contribute your opinion
It will be very helpful to those reading your comment if you have altered your Forum signature to include your Science specialism, your number of years of teaching experience and any post of responsibility that you hold. Click here and then select My Profile to do this now.
In the absence of us all being in the same room with a pad of PostITs each, I have given each of the 14 containers above a wiki page, editable by any site member. Please add your ideas, one and all! Pruning a too-long list is better than struggling with a too-short list.
Note to Mike — we need to transfer your list of theories across.
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
PS This doesn't mean that the containers are set, by the way — it only takes moments to rename a page. For instance, I'm thinking that "energy" is either an aspect of "forces and motion" or some aspect of domestic sustainability. I have never liked "energy" as a focus for study. (I have what I believe to be excellent reasons for this, incidentally, but they would take far to long to write out — will wait for a conference!)
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
Interesting discussion so far. We seem to agree I think there needs to be a return to theoretical coherence. Clearly the current curriculum has devalued this with a rather hasty scramble to fit in lots of disparate bits of content simply because they are new / modern / “cutting edge” etc in the belief that students will be simply be engaged by their “relevance”. Nanoparticles, smart alloys, hydrogen fuel cells, anyone? The mixture of frustration and confusion that results when context leads content and students are asked to evaluate the operation of these pieces of technology with only the most superficial understanding of the scientific processes behind them must be familiar to us all.
I think we need vertical and horizontal coherence:
Horizontal in that the content needs to fit into the “big idea” theory model that Stuart describes. The QCA KS3 SoW was strong on this at least, with the themes of Cells, Particles, Interdependence, Forces etc. This basic and long established principle of science education - the gradually revealed big model into which previously unconnected looking “bits” of science fall into place, punctuated by lots of “aha” moments as students see things come together – has been partly cast aside by those wishing to use science as a vehicle to deliver other, social rather than educational, agendas.
Vertical coherence in that science lends itself extremely well to a hierarchy of conceptual progression. The transition from concrete to formal operational thinking, so well handled by CASE, is well attested, easily handled by teachers, follows a well understood age related progression and most importantly fits well with the nature of scientific thinking. For the most able, the next transition to what could be called “systems thinking” becomes important as KS4 goes into KS5. This would be characterised by the ability to apprehend the underlying structural connections between families of models that pull together apparently unrelated areas of science (eg exponential changes connecting population growth to impact ionisation, capacitors to cooling curves to radioactive decay).
I also agree with Alom’s ‘big list’. So many topics have been pulled out lately, some to be scattered between the Core/Additional/Triple divides (how do the 3 board’s Triple content lists compare?) and some useful and important stuff has gone completely. SHC & Latent Heat? Gas Laws?
Andrew Urwin is Head of Science and Technology College Manager at a large state comprehensive in Devon. Prior to that he was Head of Physics at comprehensives in Sussex and Northumberland. He has been teaching for 20 years.
Andrew, could you have a look at this version (Nov 14th). I have re-arranged things so the content is roughly as Stu suggests (open to amendment/discussion) and the Theories now take second place - as the foundation of the way we teach the content.
I have agreed to do this only because my "theory led" option did not receive enough support.
The problem with Alom's "list of everything" is that it would contain the learning objective of every lesson for 5 yrs.
Mike Bell, science teacher and trainer in evidence-based practice
Andrew I would value the opportunity to talk to you in greater depth. We seem to be "singing from the same hymn-sheet" as far as abstract thinking etc goes and your insights as we start to build in the teaching approaches will be very valuable. You can contact me at: mikebell (at) educationevidence.com
Mike Bell, science teacher and trainer in evidence-based practice
The proposed containers are:
As said below, the Particle Theory container is huge, but that is because the model explains so much. I don't think that size alone can be a reason to break it into smaller containers — it is the combined consequences of just one main idea.
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
The proposed containers are:
Although only two and a half containers (compared to "biology"'s four, these are substantially larger containers).
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
The proposed containers are:
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
Following a Skype conversation with Mike, we feel that it would be productive to insert the fundamental theories into the containers, to be accompanied by a "hopefully/maybe" list of other ideas/conclusions/observations/etc that pupils should be taught about. These lists can then be pruned container by container as the containers' contents are mapped across the five years of study.
We agreed that much of what pupils learn should be hung upon a theoretical framework from the start (e.g. things dissolve as their particles "fit in the gaps" inbetween the particles of the liquid, etc).
We now just need to agree the names of the containers that we are going to divide Science into! Are the dozen containers above the right ones? The right number?
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
The trouble with a context-based approach (Option 3, above) is that there are an uncountable number of contexts and everyone will want different ones. On the other hand, there are a far far smaller number of scientific model and so less variation in opinion. We aren't (I don't think) at this stage considering the writing of anything like a lesson-by-lesson scheme of learning, and so teachers should be left to place the ideas in a context of their own choosing (I think, anyway).
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
I think Option 1 and Option 2 are mutually compatible.
My approach would be to come at it by making a COMPLETE LIST of everything I would would want my students to know / be able to do by the end of the course and then worry about structuring it…so, for example I would want students to know what an ammeter is and how to use it, to know how to interpret a speed-time graph, to understand why we can explain states of matter in terms of moving particles, to understand that some atoms are unstable and become stable by emitting nuclear radiation and so on. I would then set about classifying each of these elements before setting about structuring a course.
Is this what Option 2 is?
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
No.
Here's what I'd like to do:
Stage 1: Write out the main ideas — the jewels of Science, in other words. These will not only be theories, but also important observations/conclusions about the natural world. And I would like to do this in "areas" that are broadly B/C/P, but a little bit narrower: the "containers", above, break bio into quarters, chem into thirds and phys into fifths. The former is merely to focus thinking, the latter is because Science is growing beyond simple B/C/P divisions — indeed some of the containers above breach these traditional divides.
Stage 2: Stage 1 will result in a collapsed horizontal structure. We then need to stretch the containers out (in parallel) vertically, to arrive at a teaching order that begins concrete, progresses to abstract and takes into account the need to develop all containers in tandem so that the earlier ideas of one can underpin the later ideas of another. This "vertical" SECOND stage is what Mike has previously done (in his "General Logical teaching order for science 0707").
Stage 3: We then start breaking it into teaching units, adding context suggestions, taking care to value relevance and reduce repetition.
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
I agree with the "reasoning" at the end of Option 1, above, but not with the preamble to Option 2. The two options are the same thing, just using different names for the areas. To illustrate, I've overlaid Option 2 on Option 1 in red, above.
The "content" listed in the expandable sections of Option 2 are just there to illustrate currently-used contexts used in each "container".
I see three advantages of using "containers" over "theories" as the overall structuring feature:
1) Each container is based on a theory (as the overlay above demonstrates), but also allows for non-directly-theoretical things to be included in science education, such as the nature of different materials or how science works.
3) Containers allow for bottom-up discovery, rather than top-down dissemination of ideas.
2) Containers are more accessible than the theories, to both pupils and teachers. E.g. "electricity" seems less formidable than "electron flow theory", even though they are broadly the same thing.
Like I said in an email to you, Mike, I think we're on the same page — just quibbling over a mixture of semantics and presentation.
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
have a look at the re-working - theory under content. OK?
Mike Bell, science teacher and trainer in evidence-based practice
Far too often, we see schools / teachers repeating the same old experiments in school - osmosis with potato chips, resistance of a length of wire, rates of reactions and so on. Very rarely do students do experiments which they have thought up for themselves or for which they genuinely don't know what thee results "should" be. I'd like to find a way to include more variety in practical work and an emphasis on genuine investigation. I have had some success with trying to introduce these ideas at my own school - through a science fair, where students are encouraged to do an "original" investigation.
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
The Y13 Advancing Physics practical coursework used to be (still is?) like this. I used to give the Y13s a lab for two weeks, plus the ability to order equipment, and gave them little more than the simple instruction "follow your nose" to start them off. It was wonderful, for them and me.
Not sure how it would work for larger numbers of younger children, though. My current school is engaging with "wild tasks" — but many pupils are struggling to access them and the school is doing a lot of work in finding a path.
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.