The aims of the science national curriculum (ks3)

Again I am looking at the proposed changes to the science national curriculum at key stage 3.

My previous blog post on the aims is here: http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/comparing-aims-of-science-national.html

There has been changes from the February document to the current one.

In February this paragraph was written under the title 'Purpose of Study':


The current draft is exactly the same, however it misses the last sentence.

I still don't like the first sentence of the purpose of study. I think it was wise not to call the separate sciences biology, chemistry and physics as the lines are very blurred, and I think it marginalises geology, astronomy, ecology etc as specific disciplines.

I am also left wondering about the omission of the last sentence. Is it irrelevant as we would teach lessons in the context of application anyway? Or has it be omitted because the wording isn't great: "the specific applications", which specific applications? I do think that it is important that in science lessons we are teaching students about the links between science and their lives, without this we are not preparing them for the science based decisions they may have to make.



The aims of the science curriculum have not changed at all.

In the light of the aims, my concerns about the omission of the last sentence of the purpose seem unfounded as preparing students for a scientific and technological world seem linked to the third aim of the curriculum here.

I think that I would have liked to see 'curiosity' in the aims. Students should not just answer questions, but learn to ask them too.

As key stage 3 is not assessed by an exam the aims do not need to be restricted to things that can be assess using a written exam.

I still like the aims of the 2008 PoS best:


I agree they are wooly, but they are admirable.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Comparing the Aims of the Science National Curriculum

I think that it is right that there is a rationale for each subject as part of the national curriculum. Why are some subjects valued more than others, what makes them important?

I have written elsewhere that in the first years of my career I didn't know why I taught science other than it was a subject that interested me. But I am now convinced of the importance of science as a compulsory part of the national curriculum until 16 years old.

In the 1999 curriculum and 2008 curriculum "the importance of science" was described. When reading them they same to be along the same lines. In the 2015 proposed study there is a slightly different tone. 

1999

2008

2015

Using Wordle is often a good way to look at the language used. I think that the size of the word "knowledge" does show the the commitment of the current government to make a knowledge based curriculum first. However, there is acknowledgement that students should explain phenomena using scientific idea (knowledge in their words), and curiosity and excitement around science is stated. 

I think that this purpose does allow us to teach the type of science education that I would like to see. 

"Science has changed our lives and is vital to the world’s future prosperity, and all pupils should be taught essential aspects of the knowledge, methods, processes and uses of science. "

To me this sentence allows us to continue to teach "how science works" how discoveries are made and start to look at what is meant by "the scientific method".

1999

2008

2015

The 1999 curriculum did not have succinct aims. 

2008

2015

These are interesting and contrasting aims. I see the 2008 aims as more general aims for the whole curriculum and the 2015 specific to science.

The statement I like the least is "through the specific disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics". It makes me imagine that students would not have "science" lessons, but separate lessons. Personally I think that would be a mistake. There are overlaps between the areas and a lot of other sections of science that could be included if science were considered as a whole. Looking at the ways that areas of science overlap is particularly important to reach the final aim.

Using the term STEM brings all four fields together in illustrating the interdependence, I think that splitting science would cause a small level of conflict when trying to promote STEM as a concept to young people. 

Moving from aims to implementation

In a previous blog post here:http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/what-is-science-education-for.html I talked about the aims of science education.

I settled on three sentences from the ASE Guide to Secondary Science Education and they are:

1. A grasp of the "big" ideas that enable active participation in decisions involving science and technology 
2. A basic understanding of what science is, how it works and what are its strengths and limitations 
3. The ability to continue learning

My new Head Teacher had asked: "What is it that we are delivering? And what do we need to change/move forward? What it is that we could do better if we could" on her first meeting with the staff.

I think that I would like to remove "big" from the first sentence. It is vague, and while I want to keep the aims unspecific and therefore able to move with the times, I also don't want to highlight it.

Do the science GCSE courses we offer seek to achieve all these aims? Certainly the policitcal edge to the topics we teach in year 10, crude oil, plastics, diet, endangered species, generating electricity, using chemicals from the Earth and such like would indicate that we have a course, at GCSE at least, that meets aim 1.

The OCR gateway core science course is described in the specification as emphasizing explanation, theories and modelling in science along with the implications of science in society. So in fact we have bought into an intended curriculum that should meet aim 1 and to some extent aim 2. Meeting aim 2 fully and aim 3 at all will depend on how we deliver the curriculum as well as other factors.

At post-16 it is less clear that what we do and teach that reaches any of the aims above. In physics we only cover a few of the developments of ideas, such as the photoelectric effect and event then we might not mention the issues around it. I used to teach the context-led approach, in which the accompanying textbook had applications of the physics and discussion around the development of ideas. But mention of these were left to the students' reading or passing comments. Perhaps, that is enough?

Which leaves what we do at key stage 3. This is both the most practical key stage at which to make changes to achieve the aims above, but also the most difficult. As an independent school I don't need to consider the upcoming changes by Michael Gove to the the key stage 3 curriculum, but I do need to prepare my students so they are ready for their GCSEs.

(A colleague in a previous school once said the students don't learn anything at key stage 3, so it didn't matter what we did - I would say that is a massive concern and should have been addressed!)

Even though key stage 3 is the most practical and a good time to develop the learning skills we want to see in our students, it is a long time between the end of year 9 and the end of year 13 when the students go off into the "real world". Adapting what we do at key stage 3 is important, but it isn't enough.

Of course I have missed an important part of the curriculum: the extra curriculum. It is in this time that it is possible to develop a lot of the inter and intra personal skills students need for life. I will always remember fondly doing the STEM challenges with a group of students who came together from across the school and produced a fabulous presentation. Time for these things are always squeezed, but it would be great to spend the next few years developing an extra curricular programme that will enhance the development of the students to the three aims above.

NB: extra curriculum doesn't need to mean a "manned" club, it can be recommending books or events for the students to join in during their spare time. Alex Weatherall and Sarah Pannell's Science Teaching TV Guide is a great example, it is hosted along side Alex's Science Teaching Library recommendations. http://scienceteachinglibrary.wordpress.com/

What is science education for?

What is it that we are delivering? And what do we need to change/move forward? What it is that we could do better if we could?

The questions above were posed by our new Head Teacher on Monday in her initial address to the staff. She wants each department to think about it carefully from an individual area's point of view.

This isn't something new to me.

I have mentioned the book "how science works" by James Williams before. The opening chapter is called "understanding the nature of science". After reading this I realised that this was my main purpose in teaching. While I am teaching students things like F=ma, electrons orbit the nucleus and chlorophyll is a green pigment that they need to pass exams, I need to remember that teaching them about the nature of science is important for the rest of their lives.

I believe there is a consensus that the young people should leave school scientifically literate. (ie able to make decisions that involve science). After the ASE conference lecture by Professor Paul Hardaker (a meteorologist) I realised that even reading the weather forecast requires a level of scientific literacy.

I am more of a "bringer together of ideas" than an imaginative person. I rely on experience over creativity. So in order to write the aims for my department I am not going to be original, but start with the "aims of a good science department" from the ASE Guide to Secondary Education (https://secure.ase.org.uk/membersarea/shop/details.asp?id=132).

They are:

1. A grasp of the "big" ideas that enable active participation in decisions involving science and technology
2. A basic understanding of what science is, how it works and what are its strengths and limitations
3. The ability to continue learning

If you want to know the rationale then you will have to buy the book!

In a previous blog post about a lecture given by Michael Reiss he talks about the purpose of education being the "flourishing of young people". I would hope that science education in my department will aim to do this in the context of our subject.
http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/ase-conference-and-purpose-of-science.html
Professor Reiss also points out that there is an overlap between what students learn in the classroom and outside of it (e.g. From YouTube). It is increasingly important that we help the young people learn to interpret this information critically and correctly. So I believe that aim 3 is a very important point to consider in that context.

(I think about the lecture given by Paul Hardaker where he spent time talking about climate change and the lack of acceptance among the general public.)

Under aim 1 I would want to ensure that students get to experience science theories first hand in an controlled context in the lab, so they can see and believe certain scientific phenomena. I believe that students can't discover scientific ideas through play, but need scaffolding to reach accepted conclusions and understand the evidence behind them.

Of course what the "big ideas" are in aim 1 are up for debate.

I think aim 2 is overlooked by many science teachers, myself included in my early teaching career. See my comments above about the book "How Science Works". For those who are going on to further science studies and those who are not they have to understand that no idea in science cannot be challenged and refined. Science is not a group of indisputable facts, yet it is also not something that can be argued from all sides. It is difficult to give 13/14 year olds experience of this though.

It is easy to take someone else's opinions, particularly when they are written in a published book, and accept them as part of your policies. Easy to do when you are creating policies as a tick box exercise. However, I do believe these three aims and I am committed to achieving them for the students I teach. I won't be adopting them, writing them down and hoping it is what we do, I want to take the next step and embed them in our curriculum, teaching and attitude.

What is it that we are delivering? And what do we need to change/move forward? What it is that we could do better if we could?

On my journey to answer this I have my aims, now I need to look at what we are doing and in what way we meet them.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

John Lewis Lecture: Professor Paul Hardaker, CEO of the IoP. ASE conference blog post 2

This blog post is an edited version of the things I noted during the John Lewis lecture. They make not make sense as I was gripped by what Paul Hardaker had to say so didn't always have time to type what he was saying.

This lecture and the lecture by Michael Reiss in the previous blog post as ones that have most been useful during the last week at school, which I didn't expect when I went to them!

The first thing I noted was I that John Lewis (who passed away in autumn 2012) sounded like a truly inspiring man, influencing a lot of positive reforms and changes and I was proud to be in a lecture in his name.

Professor Hardaker started with an image that captivated him. It is below. The photo doesn't do it justice as his version was animated and showed the general weather patterns on the Earth.



At the moment in my lessons and curriculum development plans I am looking to develop the idea that science develops and changes. So I quickly noted the names Fitzroy who Paul Hardaker described as being responsible for bringing science into predicting the weather, and LF Richardson - took the globe and put a grid around the globe to help track the weather, now a days they still use grids, but the grid goes up into the atmosphere and down into ocean too.

Professor Hardaker also explained that collaboration important in weather and climate as 97% of the UK information comes from other countries. I thought that this was a very useful point to make to students about the nature of science in the modern world.

Prof Hardaker describe his perfect Christmas gift: a toaster that connects to the weather forecast and burns the most appropriate symbol to your morning slice of toast.



Weather scientists use models. What you can do is limited by computing resources. Climate models are very large scale, not good resolution. However the local weather does have good resolution so that localised weather issues can be identified.

We were snow an example of requiring good resolution. Each arrow represents a section on the grid. Hurricane Catharina would not have been predictable if the was not the same level of detail/resolution.



The computer models are also run a number of times to take into account as many possible variables as possible. When Michael Fish failed to predict the Hurricane to hit southern England in the 80s, the computer models were not as accurate as they are now. The top image shows what they were able to do then and the bottom one is what we can do now with the same information. Again showing real development of science and technology.



Professor Hardaker then went on to describe the hard work that goes into displaying weather information for the public.

It occurred to me at this point that the weather is the science that the general public interact with every day. And we don't teach it in science!

He showed us the image below as asked which way of displaying weather we like the best. In a room of scientists version 2 was preferred. Professor Hardaker explained that each version got 25% preference in public surveys.


This section of the lecture gave me a sense of purpose for when I am teaching young people to interpret data.

Paul Hardaker then went onto talk about students studying meteorology.

Meteorology is 50/50 male/female. But a lot of these students come from social science, not from science, which causes a problem as the students need maths and physics to access meteorology. Most of the meteorology is taught in geography, so the students don't realise the maths and physics necessary. University students often have to go back and do a masters after their geography degrees to improve their subject knowledge.

Being CEO of the IoP it was inevitable that Paul Hardaker would talk about the recent IoP report into girls studying physics.


We need more female public role models.




Paul Hardaker then finished his lecture by talking about the Greenhouse effect and Global Warming. I took the first image because I liked it. A lot of people don't understand the greenhouse effect and I think this image does a good job.



Professor Hardaker displayed a lot of data about climate change:







The image below shows the temperatures we have had and the lower graph has the computer model for the temperatures without the effect of global warming.




If we double CO2 then temp goes up 1 degree, but the atmopshere can hold more water at this temperature, which causes another 3 derees of change in temperature, and aerosols in the air, ice, snow will also affect temp another 0.5-5.5 degrees.

Professor Hardaker said that storm surges are more worrying than sea level rises in shorter term.

After to using data to prove to a room of scientists that climate change is real he went on to look at the complicated nature of tackling it.



Paul Hardaker asked "Why do we disagree about climate change?" He explained that is was related to how we frame the argument.
-Economic problem,
-Technology problem,
-Global injustice,
-Over consumption (population/prosperity),
-Natural variability and we should just adapt to climate change,
-Perhaps we are at a tipping point so need to geo-engineer with giant mirrors and ships in the Atlantic pumping areosols into atmosphere.

He said that we need to reduce emissions by 80%, but we need to start the journey, and think about how we use energy, even if we don't know the exact solution yet.



The most disturbing slide was the last one.




Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Reading

ASE conference and the Purpose of Science Education

This is my first blog post about the ASE conference. It is almost a week since I came back and whilst the euphoria I felt during the 3 1/2 days is gone the resolution to be a better teacher and head of department remains.

The first lecture I attended was at 9.30am on Thursday morning. It was by Professor Michael Reiss and felt like a whistle stop tour of all the ideas and policies related to science education and some related to education in general.



The context of his talk was the revision of national curriculum and who will be the awarding body. OCR sponsored the talk: it wasn't biased towards them, but I can imagine that awarding bodies are getting as much advice from people like Michael Reiss as possible to ensure their survival!

He started on a very popular topic for a lot of people in education: Hattie's meta studies of educational research. The list of the most influential 10 factors in order are in the image below.


Professor Reiss pointed out that most of these factors are under the control of the teacher, not the curriculum. I found this point very interesting, I have taught some terrible schemes of work, that I firmly believe hampered my students' learning, so it takes a leap to believe that curriculum doesn't factor directly in the top 10.

Michael Riess then went on to describe work by Tim Oates on factors that control what students learn. I didn't get the opportunity to take a photo or write everything down, but a selection is below:

1. Curriculum content, (awarding body and the text book)
2. Assessment
3. Inspections
4. Institutional forms and structure
5. Funding

Curriculum is one of a vary large number of things that affect what is taught. This related well to a blog post I wrote about the intended, taught and learned curricula - all of which are different!


Professor Reiss then went on to discuss what it meant to be "True to Science".
He said science was: reaching science conclusions, gathering imperical data, creating and using models, testing. And went on to comment that science is different to other subjects in the way that it concerns all three of mathematical, ethical and aesthetic knowledge.

He also said that as educators we are not good at getting across at school that the way of working in science is also applicable elsewhere, eg geography, history, archaeology.



Teaching science in school is very important because The school lab can simplify the model of science, as it is complex. Youngsters cannot learn science by simply experiencing it. In schools science we are trying to get students to understand different levels: context, macro, invisible and model

A point I found interesting was that the top performing countries in the PISA rankings tend to have more direct assessment of the practical work than UK. As we move even further away from assessing practical skills this is a very interesting point to note.

Michael Reiss then went on to talk about outsider art and what he called outsider science. I wasn't sure why. But I have since been told that he believes that the people with "outsider" opinions shouldn't be dismissed, but respected if not agreed with.
Outsider art: art produced by people who are not trained artists.
Outsider science: creationism, climate denial, alien abduction, 400,000 people believe they have been abducted by aliens, astrology, conspiracy theories.




As Professor Reiss started to wind up his lecture he moved from the topic of science education to what education is about in a wider sense. I found interesting his comment that "overall aim of education should be the flourishing of students. At the moment the curriculum starts with the subjects".

(I know of schools who have tried to develop skills based curricula, but not that have really had a massive impact outside their school and some, I might even say most, that have been scrapped.)

Professor Reiss then described the skills that people call for in school leavers:
1. Cognitive skills
2. Interpersonal skills e,g, communicate to another, articulate thoughts in variety if ways
3. Intrapersonal skills e.g. Adaptability and self management

Relating this general overview to science education he outlined some factors that are "True to science education":
1. Formal and informal learning
2. Lifelong learning
3. Both academic and vocational science
4. There is more permeability between what we do in the science laboratory and what you can experience outside of the school e.g. You tube

Michael Reiss also talked about double award vs triple award. He posed the interesting question: are students put into a two teir system if they do double? Particularly if you consider that students who do triple archive half a grade more at a-level than those who do double award science.

Finally he talked about what influences students to study science and maths at university. He talked about a study that interviewed about 60 students all of whom had the a-levels to do physical sciences or maths as a degree, half chose to do so and half who didn't.

The conclusions are in the photo below.



And a story indicating this is shown in this photo.




I am very pleased I attended this lecture as it gave me a lot to think about. Lectures like this are an important part of the ASE conference, when else would a regular science teacher be able to hear the thoughts and ideas of a Professor of Science Education from the IoE? Thank you to ASE and OCR, as well as Michael Reiss. (Factiod: he was staying at the same hotel as me!)

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Rudgleigh Ave,,United Kingdom