3. Is current Science education achieving our agreed aims?
In Strand 2: Aims of Science education we outlined what we believe a Science education should provide to pupils. Here we discuss whether or not the current Science curriculum fulfils these aims. The remaining strands of this project will attempt to reproduce successes and overcome failings.
Successes of the current Science curriculum?
- All pupils receive at least one GCSE science qualification.
- Core science gives middle-ability pupils a more appropriate and supportive curriculum than the old “double award” courses.
- Greater flexibility.
- More pupils are studying separate sciences.
- Many schools have received record-breaking results in science.
Failings of the current Science curriculum?
The following are some concerns that teachers have expressed to us, often verbally.
Problems which affect all pupils
| 1 | The constant change in content (imposed by Government) undermines the teacher's ability to teach well (a well-structured curriculum would be stable over a much longer period of time). |
| 2 | The quality of the materials produced by awarding bodies is modest at best and unhelpful at worst. |
| 3 | Some units appear (particularly to the pupil) to have little coherence. Pupils have problems knowing what it is about. |
| 4 | GCSE assessments do not match specifications well enough, have too generous grade boundaries and do not adequately differentiate pupils of different ability. This is compounded by excessive use of modular, multiple-choice exams, which test mainly short-term retention. |
| 5 | Many schools feel pressured to purchase the textbook directly linked to the course to help achieve higher examination scores. Regular changes to the course require further expense and waste. |
| 6 | Where the "spiral curriculum" means that pupils meet the same material agian, a feeling that "we've done this before" blocks further learning. |
Problems related to different abilities.
There are a range of problems which arise from failing to understand the substantial differences between able pupils who need the opportunity of a good A-level preparation and less academic pupils who have neither the aspiration nor appropriate grades.
| 1 | Science is difficult: Not all pupils can benefit by studying scientific theories. |
| 2 | Dumbing down. The level of demand needed to achieve a high grade has been reduced. |
| 3 | Inadequate preparation for further study. Our "scientists of the future" are not able to receive a good enough Science education within the framework currently in place. |
| 4 | Abstract concepts are often introduced in a simplified form in Core science and elaborated in Additional. This means pupils cannot make “sense” of the Core material and have to rote-learn for the exam. |
| 5 | The content of GCSE Core science is overly-simplistic for high-ability students and too abstract for the non-academic. |
| 6 | The Science education offered to non-future-scientists ("Science for citizens") is often a dilute and ineffective introduction to more abstract, less relevant science concepts rather than the practical knowledge they will find useful. |
| 7 | Achieving a low grade in an academic course has no good purpose. |
Problems related to teaching
| 1 | Science of learning. The research which shows the most (and least) effective teaching methods is not applied in the course. |
| 2 | Logical order. Pupils construct their knowledge of abstract ideas. Unless the concepts appear in the right order and the pupil has sufficient time to absorb and apply their new knowledge, they cannot learn well. |
How school science affects the adult population
Nearly all adults have had a science education at school. An analysis of public attitudes to science reveals several deficiencies in the current system.
- When asked to draw or describe "a scientist", most people describe someone in a white coat, someone using words and numbers they do not understand etc.
- Many adults in the UK seem to be proud of the fact that they "don't understand science".
- Conversely, respect for "scientists" (who do understand it) means that, to support any claim, science or pseudo-science language is used. The public are easily fooled by claims in adverts and newspapers which purport to have a scientific basis.
- Most people associate "science" with the set of facts and knowledge they tried to learn at school, not with a process.
- Adults are largely unaware of "placebo" and "Hawthorne" type effects - where the outcome is created by the experiment itself.
- Science is viewed in the UK as having been invented in Europe in the 17th century, rather than as the mode of enquiry which enabled the modern world to develop.
- Most adults cannot assess and compare risk. We over-react to small risks (such as your child being abducted) while failing to act decisively on larger risks and near certainties such as smoking, obesity and climate change.
To what extend has the adult attitude to science been created by their experience of science in school?
- School science reinforces these problems by measuring science as the ability to learn an agreed agenda. Most pupils struggle and leave school to become adults who think they "don't get science".
- Much of school science is disconnected with pupils' everyday experience. This reinforces the idea of it being separate and ignorable.
- Experiment tend to be carried out in "lab conditions" and on experiments with a definite, known answer.
- While most pupils grasp the idea of a "fair test", they are not introduced to the rules of evidence when controlling all the variables is not possible.
- Much of the output of science is in statistical form, but little training is done on interpreting statistical evidence, to understand "statistically significant" evidence etc.
- HSW works aims to give pupils "real life" contexts (such as global warming), but overestimates their current knowledge. Pupils can only reproduce the arguments they have heard, not form a judgement.
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.
The statements 'Recordbreaking results' in Successes and 'dumbing down' in Problems are in conflict. The GCSE results now show a 'C' grade in Physics written papers can be got for as little as 31%. I would argue, from speaking to friends in Industry and Business, that this of no practical use. The argument for or against the papers being easier is misleading. I would argue that the problems are (1) the removal of logical thought and mathematical difficulty in exchange for linguistic skills in interpreting questions, and (2) the lowering of pass percentages in the externally marked components. (1) is what means students are not prepared for further study, and also what puts off bright students. (2) is what means a low grade has no good purpose.
The courses have been revised in the order KS3,KS4,KS5. No wonder the Universities are unhappy!
We (scientists) need to make a decision as to what stage of learning we start teaching 'proper science' to those capable and willing to learn it. I would argue age 14 is appropriate, i.e. KS4. Naturally this means we also have to accept that 'one size cannot fit all'. By definition, GCSE Physics cannot be 'harder' than GCSE Core Science, which is why core science has to have half-life in it, which the less able don't understand, so they dumb the questions down, so it IS easier anyway(!).
I have a big problem also with 'logical order' and constant change. A good teacher should be able to structure a course to suit each class they have, which should ideally be done IN CONSULTATION WITH THE STUDENTS. A new good teacher (or teacher working out of specialism) should have sufficient material to "hang their hat on". This means there should be sufficient flexibility provided by the course and the department to do this. Constant changes make this impossible, as does modularisation. The teacher should then have sufficient time to tailor the material to their classes. I do not mean just lesson preparation, but course preparation.
Example from personal experience: new group of bright year 10 girls & a competition at Bristol University modelling earthquake resistant buildings. "Would you like to do this?", answer "Yes" (n.b. Set 3 said "no"). Tear up year 10 plan for this class and spend 4 months glueing sticks. V. busy teacher trying to make sure syllabus elements are included somehow. Results? girls come 2nd,3rd,4th & 6th, win £250 (cash! big party!). Of 18 girls, 2 girls become civil engineers, another does Geological Sciences at Oxford and another is now doing a PhD in geological fractures at Caltech. What a co-incidence! And all the others got the same grades in Physics as they did in the other 2 sciences. I don't understand the problem of students (especially girls) not doing STEM subjects; I've never had the slightest problem.
Problems with teaching. The root cause of all this is requiring teachers to teach outside their specialisation = little enthusiasm. If teachers wish to, fine; but you shouldn't oblige them to. Of course, you'd then have to pay the physical scientists more (at the moment). It doesn't matter that this is arguably 'unfair', because the rest of the world pays them more and you are in competition with them.
I think there is also a massive problem with too much context in syllabi, as it restricts the flexibility a good teacher has to tailor a course to their students. Bring back content! This is again just trying to cover up the problem of non-specialists, since specialists know enough context without an exam board having to tell them.
To summarise therefore:
Pupils 1 - Change must stop! The teachers will then have more time.
Pupils 2 Reduce the level of context and, together with 1, we won't need the material from the exam boards.
Pupils 3 Ban modularisation. Full stop. Then the course can be done in an order determined by each teacher & class. End of crazy non-links.
Pupils 4 This point and all the other 3, can be done by using IGCSE. I have taught very weak pupils and find any old science course at foundation level to be fine. You don't need to teach kids 3 sciences to educate them at KS4. They'll get scientific principles by studying any one of them, so let them pick one they like. Put the safety stuff like sunscreens in at KS3.
I'll stop now. Most of the other problems can be handled with what's above. Thanks for reading.
Rick Hodge has 11 years in Independent secondary education, latterly as a Head of Science & Physics, and now teaches abroad.
Many thanks for your wise words, Rick. These are the reasons we have for 3 of the points you made.:
»'Recordbreaking results' in Successes and 'dumbing down' in Problems are in conflict.»
The first list of "sucesses" is a defence against the attack that we are being too negative. This is simply a list of some of the positive things people say about the new GCSEs eg "We have the best results ever". This is NOT in conflict with the facts of dumbing -down - ie, they got better reults either becuase the exams were easier or because the grade boubndaries were lower.
»I have a big problem also with 'logical order' »
This is not an attempt to tell teachers what to teach. The "logical order" is just for the concepts. It is based on the simple observation that some concepts need to be taught before others or the learner cannot learn. Eg lots of yr 10 pupils have trouble with chemistry because their concepts of atom, element, molecule etc. are not secure.
»what stage of learning we start teaching 'proper science' to those capable and willing to learn it. I would argue age 14 is appropriate»
we came up with starting in yr 8 partly because we know that the more able pupils are able and willing to learn "proper" science by then and partly because, when you list all the concepts they need to cover by the end of yr 11, there is not sufficient time in yrs 10 and 11.
Mike Bell, science teacher and trainer in evidence-based practice
Could it be that pupils in year 8 may sometimes be too young know what they wish to do in the future?
It seems to me that creating such a vast curriculum divide in year 8 may determine their future prematurely, the 'proper science' course would require more timetabled lessons meaning those pupils could miss out on other aspects of their education.
In my short teaching career so far, I have had several very capable scientists at year 9 'opting out' from triple science so that they can choose other options…
Anthony Jackson. Teaching 3 years. An ecologist who is working as a physics specialist at present in Devon.
Hi, DevonScience,
(Could you please alter your Screen name — both by going to My Profile? Thank you!)
Thanks for commenting!
See the next page in the process — 4. Principles. We don't know how to manage the divide, but we share your concerns and must find a way around it. We have some ideas, but have decided that we will have a better perspective on the issue once we have further developed the course.
Further, by structuring the curriculum over five years, we believe that there will be plenty of curriculum time for all routes, without timetabling more lessons in Y7-Y9.
Stu
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.