In today’s TES Jonathan Osborne, professor of science education at King’s College, London, claims that the pressure to do well in assessment meant that coursework investigations were now being taught as a set of “receipe-like steps” that have little to do with proper scientific exploration.
Osborne argues that assessment of investigation is dominated by just three experiments: measuring the resistance of a wire, the rates of chemical reaction and the rate of osmosis in a potato. Osborne adds: “How can such a limited set of practicals develop or exemplify the wide range of skills and scientific practices that constitute science… It’s a bit like reducing the teaching of performance in music to three standard scales on a recorder.”
Full Version: Science Coursework
Haven't read the article, but here are my views.
True.
1. Students don't understand the science behind the investigation, so they can't possibly carry out a "proper scientific exploration." At best they will understand the basics of the investigation once they have finished it.
2. After 5 years at High School (and before that at Primary level) of being taught how to do investigations many students still find the basic principles incomprehensible.
If this was all the practical work they did it would be true. But the Investigations are just the assessment side of practical work. Practical work is (or should be) carried out in the majority of lessons.
The practical assessment should be scrapped, but not for the reasons quoted above.
Max
QUOTE
In today’s TES Jonathan Osborne, professor of science education at King’s College, London, claims that the pressure to do well in assessment meant that coursework investigations were now being taught as a set of “receipe-like steps” that have little to do with proper scientific exploration.
True.
1. Students don't understand the science behind the investigation, so they can't possibly carry out a "proper scientific exploration." At best they will understand the basics of the investigation once they have finished it.
2. After 5 years at High School (and before that at Primary level) of being taught how to do investigations many students still find the basic principles incomprehensible.
QUOTE
Osborne argues that assessment of investigation is dominated by just three experiments: measuring the resistance of a wire, the rates of chemical reaction and the rate of osmosis in a potato. Osborne adds: “How can such a limited set of practicals develop or exemplify the wide range of skills and scientific practices that constitute science… It’s a bit like reducing the teaching of performance in music to three standard scales on a recorder.”
If this was all the practical work they did it would be true. But the Investigations are just the assessment side of practical work. Practical work is (or should be) carried out in the majority of lessons.
The practical assessment should be scrapped, but not for the reasons quoted above.
Max
Like Max, I have not read the article, but here's my related view.
There are two separate threads to my take.
1. The fault lies in the system. If it is true that teachers, schools and students are under ever increasing pressure to produce results, and the system allows them to re-produce utterly uninspirational coursework and still get those excellent results, then the system is broken. I assume that the same old stuff turns up time and time again because it is solid work that scores well against the criteria that have been laid down. If the criteria remain unchallenging there is little or no incentive for under pressure students and teachers to do anything original or different. It's up to the exam boards and ultimately the QCA to change that.
2. My personal views on science lab work are usually extremely unpopular. I am a chemistry teacher who dislikes doing practical experiments. The reason? Well, I only want to deal with experiments that produce "perfect data" and that do not contradict any theory that I am teaching. The students often lack the academic maturity and intellect to understand and interpret experiments that "don't work", and this can lead to horrible confusion over the theory I am attempting to get them to learn. I know this usually upsets other chemistry educators, but this is how I justify it.
In high school we are NOT conducting real life scientific inquiry, we are NOT performing experiments that we do not know the answers to, and we are NOT doing scientific research. Nor should we be. High school is not the place to attempt to re-produce "real science", it's simply inappropriate on so many levels.
Adrian Dingle
Adrian Dingle's Chemistry Pages
There are two separate threads to my take.
1. The fault lies in the system. If it is true that teachers, schools and students are under ever increasing pressure to produce results, and the system allows them to re-produce utterly uninspirational coursework and still get those excellent results, then the system is broken. I assume that the same old stuff turns up time and time again because it is solid work that scores well against the criteria that have been laid down. If the criteria remain unchallenging there is little or no incentive for under pressure students and teachers to do anything original or different. It's up to the exam boards and ultimately the QCA to change that.
2. My personal views on science lab work are usually extremely unpopular. I am a chemistry teacher who dislikes doing practical experiments. The reason? Well, I only want to deal with experiments that produce "perfect data" and that do not contradict any theory that I am teaching. The students often lack the academic maturity and intellect to understand and interpret experiments that "don't work", and this can lead to horrible confusion over the theory I am attempting to get them to learn. I know this usually upsets other chemistry educators, but this is how I justify it.
In high school we are NOT conducting real life scientific inquiry, we are NOT performing experiments that we do not know the answers to, and we are NOT doing scientific research. Nor should we be. High school is not the place to attempt to re-produce "real science", it's simply inappropriate on so many levels.
Adrian Dingle
Adrian Dingle's Chemistry Pages
I am old enough to remember the pre-national curriculum days and the excitement initially generated by the idea that 'process' should drive teaching and learning in science. On reflection the lack of balance between content, context and process was somewhat naïve. The National Curriculum for Science drove the pendulum back the other way while trying to maintain some vision of students as scientists able to apply the scientific method. The result for those who remember was usually a pointless and unwieldy exercise of box ticking.
Some sense may have prevailed and assessment is now a little easier but we seem to have lost any real vision as to the purpose of investigative work. The old 'steps in an investigation model' is now geared to grade achievement without real understanding. It does a disservice to those students who continue to study sciences beyond GCSE.
Some sense may have prevailed and assessment is now a little easier but we seem to have lost any real vision as to the purpose of investigative work. The old 'steps in an investigation model' is now geared to grade achievement without real understanding. It does a disservice to those students who continue to study sciences beyond GCSE.
QUOTE
coursework investigations were now being taught as a set of “receipe-like steps” that have little to do with proper scientific exploration.
I wholeheartedly agree with this view of the current so called 'scientific investigation' that we are all having to put our GCSE students through. It has become a totally meaningless exercise that takes up vast amounts of time and energy on the part of both staff and students, and I agree with Max that it should be scrapped in its current form.
However, I do feel that practical work is a vital part of a science teacher's work as it has such a hugely motivating effect on many students. If all science was taught by 'chalk and talk', reading text books and the like, the response from classes I teach would be 'it's boring'! What would that do for the future of science? Equally, would useful scientific advances be made if there was no lab work carried out to test the theories? Our future scientists need to have practical skills don't they, so surely we are the ones who must lay the foundations for these.
I am very well aware that it is easy to complain that 'scientific investigation' isn't worth doing but at the same time we, as science educators, have to decide on a more useful type of exercise to replace it as it should, surely, be considered an extremely important part of science teaching.
So come on colleagues, lets do some positive thinking instead of whinging. Perhaps we might have some influence on changing the system!
What about a short 'skills' examination .... ? Any thoughts (positive ones please!)?
As I see it the assessment system fails because it causes too much distress to many students. I've never seen a well motivated student complete an investigation in class. They all spend hours at home writing them up. The whole process is repeated again and again until they have enough good marks for their portfolio. This is usually towards the end of the assessment period in year 11. As much as I like the principles of science coursework the current assessment it is just not effective in terms of student or teacher time.
If you look at the assessment criteria most of the marks are for "theory" in either planning, analysing or evaluating scientific information. So this could easily be assessed in a traditional written exam. In terms of student and teacher time this would be much more effective.
Personally I would prefer a "practical" assessment to be made and assessed internally by individual schools, with moderation of the work as at present. So in effect a single practical exam. At the moment most students work in groups so the coursework is often not a very good indicator of an individual's practical ability.
Investigative work is currently 20% of the GCSE.
So a single in-house practical exam would be worth about 8/30ths of this.
A single theory paper on practical theory would be the other 22/30ths.
Max
If you look at the assessment criteria most of the marks are for "theory" in either planning, analysing or evaluating scientific information. So this could easily be assessed in a traditional written exam. In terms of student and teacher time this would be much more effective.
Personally I would prefer a "practical" assessment to be made and assessed internally by individual schools, with moderation of the work as at present. So in effect a single practical exam. At the moment most students work in groups so the coursework is often not a very good indicator of an individual's practical ability.
Investigative work is currently 20% of the GCSE.
So a single in-house practical exam would be worth about 8/30ths of this.
A single theory paper on practical theory would be the other 22/30ths.
Max
There is one other thing I was going to add. The current assessment system fails to give any marks for being inventive or original. This is a great shame.
So the "coursework" is not really individual coursework so much as individually assessed practical tasks, where each task has a limited set of practical options that will produce "good" results.
Max
So the "coursework" is not really individual coursework so much as individually assessed practical tasks, where each task has a limited set of practical options that will produce "good" results.
Max
I am graduated in Chemistry and teach Chemistry.
It looks that Chemistry everywhere represents a problem for students. We teachers year by year try to apply different methodologies and different approaches, hoping that the results will improve,
but often they are not what we expect.
The students,whatever the age or the level school, do not orient themselves well in the scientific field and particularly in Chemistry that is an experimental science.
I agree with the colleagues who consider essential the experimental activity to comprehend Chemistry. But the experiment must give reliable results otherwise the students get confused.
So it is important to select,in relation to the instruments we have, those experiments whose results contribute to make clear and consolidate the theoretical Knowledge.
Even the use of the informatic instruments,in my opinion, should be realized only when the students have become conscious of the mechanism of the process.
In my opinion the primary cause of this frustrating condition originates from the fact that the scientific education of the students should start since when the children initiate their school life.
The children should not look but act, experimenting themselves,understand the cause/effect of a phenomenon or of the coursework and they must be stimulated mentally.
It is essential to build in them the logical process.
The children,I think, have to use their head.
What your opinion?
Giuseppa Mauro
It looks that Chemistry everywhere represents a problem for students. We teachers year by year try to apply different methodologies and different approaches, hoping that the results will improve,
but often they are not what we expect.
The students,whatever the age or the level school, do not orient themselves well in the scientific field and particularly in Chemistry that is an experimental science.
I agree with the colleagues who consider essential the experimental activity to comprehend Chemistry. But the experiment must give reliable results otherwise the students get confused.
So it is important to select,in relation to the instruments we have, those experiments whose results contribute to make clear and consolidate the theoretical Knowledge.
Even the use of the informatic instruments,in my opinion, should be realized only when the students have become conscious of the mechanism of the process.
In my opinion the primary cause of this frustrating condition originates from the fact that the scientific education of the students should start since when the children initiate their school life.
The children should not look but act, experimenting themselves,understand the cause/effect of a phenomenon or of the coursework and they must be stimulated mentally.
It is essential to build in them the logical process.
The children,I think, have to use their head.
What your opinion?
Giuseppa Mauro
I have to reiterate what I've said above.
1. As long as the whole educational system places so much emphasis on exam grades, and those grades can be achieved with bland, recipe book labs, then there is no incentive for the masses to change.
2. If we attempted to teach real research type science in high school the result would be kids with no fundamentals to back up their stunning problem solving, making them as useless to the scientific world (but in a different way) as the kids who are coming out of school now.
My argument would always be for putting the fundamental learning first (in school) and leaving the problem solving to be learned later.
1. As long as the whole educational system places so much emphasis on exam grades, and those grades can be achieved with bland, recipe book labs, then there is no incentive for the masses to change.
2. If we attempted to teach real research type science in high school the result would be kids with no fundamentals to back up their stunning problem solving, making them as useless to the scientific world (but in a different way) as the kids who are coming out of school now.
My argument would always be for putting the fundamental learning first (in school) and leaving the problem solving to be learned later.
QUOTE
But the experiment must give reliable results otherwise the students get confused. So it is important to select,in relation to the instruments we have, those experiments whose results contribute to make clear and consolidate the theoretical Knowledge.
In my experience this is what most teachers do.
QUOTE
The children should not look but act, experimenting themselves,understand the cause/effect of a phenomenon or of the coursework and they must be stimulated mentally.
In theory this would be good but not all students have a liking for investigative work. Some will get bored after ten minutes while others could keep going for several days if you left them. So in a typical teaching environment investigative science that is student led is difficult. On top of this most of the students don't have enough science knowledge to understand what they find out. By the start of A level (16+) I find that students just about have enough knowledge to carry out investigative work. A few exceptional students seem to get to grips with the principles by Year 8 (13), although they usually do not have enough basic knowledge to explain things.
QUOTE
1. As long as the whole educational system places so much emphasis on exam grades, and those grades can be achieved with bland, recipe book labs, then there is no incentive for the masses to change.
Adrian, for UK GCSE shouldn't this be:
As long as the whole educational system places so much emphasis on exam grades, and 20% of those grades can be achieved with bland, recipe book labs, the other 80% with bland recipe book theory, then there is no incentive for the masses to change.
I would have thought the theory would be much more "recipe book" than the practical, because the "theory" always works.
Max
Max
I think the point is this.
Theory will inevitably be (relatively) bland stuff, like you say, that's its very nature, but it's up to the exam boards, and ultimately the QCA or the NC, to force students and teachers into making the other 20% more creative. Without specifically penalizing students for lack of inspiration nothing is likely to change. There HAS to be an incentive for change otherwise it's all "mouth and no trousers", so to speak!
I think the point is this.
Theory will inevitably be (relatively) bland stuff, like you say, that's its very nature, but it's up to the exam boards, and ultimately the QCA or the NC, to force students and teachers into making the other 20% more creative. Without specifically penalizing students for lack of inspiration nothing is likely to change. There HAS to be an incentive for change otherwise it's all "mouth and no trousers", so to speak!
QUOTE
it's up to the exam boards, and ultimately the QCA or the NC, to force students and teachers into making the other 20% more creative.
Oh dear, more prescriptive stuff from the exam boards is not what we need! WE are at the daily chalk face, WE should try to be a bit more creative in our thinking of what our teaching is really about.
[Personally I would prefer a "practical" assessment to be made and assessed internally by individual schools, with moderation of the work as at present. So in effect a single practical exam. At the moment most students work in groups so the coursework is often not a very good indicator of an individual's practical ability.
Investigative work is currently 20% of the GCSE.
So a single in-house practical exam would be worth about 8/30ths of this.
A single theory paper on practical theory would be the other 22/30ths.]
A more workable idea indeed. The 'skills' teaching allows students to become competent in using a wide variety of scientific apparatus and making accurate readings...surely basic 'tools of the trade' for any scientist at any level?
I am unclear about the 8/30ths - how did you arrive at this figure?
I believe that 'skills' should be given a higher proportion of marks to demonstrate that they have significant importance within science study and research.
'Practical theory' is already tested in many terminal GCSE papers to some extent. Do we really need an additional paper for this alone?
Perhaps we should consider getting rid of some of the purely mathematical questions that are often worth an inordinate number of marks at GCSE, and don't test scientific understanding at all but simply the ability to manipulate figures and formulae!
QUOTE (Maggie Jarvis @ Jan 13 2004, 04:56 PM)
Oh dear, more prescriptive stuff from the exam boards is not what we need! WE are at the daily chalk face, WE should try to be a bit more creative in our thinking of what our teaching is really about.
Well, that's all well and good if you are;
a. A motivated and competent teacher, and
b. A motivated and competent teacher that has a real interest in developing inspirational ideas related to labs and coursework.
I have met quite literally dozens of teachers who do not fit into category a., and I certainly don't fit into category b. It may be argued that as a person who does fit into category a., I ought to be in category b. too, but I'm afraid I'm not. If this is such an important aspect of scientific education, then perhaps I should be forced into b. by the QCA, the NC and the Exam Boards, via the syllabus.
Getting back to practicalities. I have spent sometime thinking this evening about a suitable chemistry investigation for year 11 that can be easily assessed and that meets the grade criteria. Remember - if it is too creative it's hard to mark. No real learning here please! 
Dear Max,
when the children start their school life do not have any idea about scientific concepts, manipulation of materials,use of scientific instrumets or other subjects. The knowledge they have is only the spontaneous one;what they have listened (sometime) in the family or through the T.V. .
It is six years (year by year in the same class) that a colleague of mine and I work with the children (age 41/2-5 ) and the results are surprisingly positive.
The spontaneous knowledge is substituted gradually by the scientific knowledge,not only in relation to the concepts,but also in the practical work that actually helps to understand better the context. They become more and more confident with the manipulation of the materials and the use of the scientific instruments.
The kids comprehend and apprehend more than what we suppose and/or expect.
These children later will not have the problems we face in the junior high and high school..
Obviously in every class some pupils learn easily,others do not and the last ones do not have to be let behind.
Giuseppa Mauro
when the children start their school life do not have any idea about scientific concepts, manipulation of materials,use of scientific instrumets or other subjects. The knowledge they have is only the spontaneous one;what they have listened (sometime) in the family or through the T.V. .
It is six years (year by year in the same class) that a colleague of mine and I work with the children (age 41/2-5 ) and the results are surprisingly positive.
The spontaneous knowledge is substituted gradually by the scientific knowledge,not only in relation to the concepts,but also in the practical work that actually helps to understand better the context. They become more and more confident with the manipulation of the materials and the use of the scientific instruments.
The kids comprehend and apprehend more than what we suppose and/or expect.
These children later will not have the problems we face in the junior high and high school..
Obviously in every class some pupils learn easily,others do not and the last ones do not have to be let behind.
Giuseppa Mauro
Maggie:
I was using the 8/30 marks from the practical assessments (8 marks of Obtaining Evidence) as the rough proportion of marks for "hands on" practical ability. Although, all 8 marks are not for practical work but for drawing and labelling a correct table of results etc. But some marks can also be awarded in the Planning stage when preliminary investigative work has been carried out.
As you say, there are many possible ways that the understanding of practical science could be tested and added to or integrated into the current exams.
Giuseppa:
I am sure you are doing great work with those young children. I've not taught that age range but I don't think different teaching approaches would make much difference to the ability of students by age 15/16 to cope with the current UK practical assessment. In the UK the investigative science method is started on at Primary age range anyway and they still find it difficult.
I recently realised that the principles of scientific investigation apply to just about any subject where you have to research material and then make a judgement on it. It could apply to historical research or just about anything else. Essentially it is about being thorough in your gathering of relevant evidence, analysing it, making conclusions, and evaluating the fairness and worth of everything you have done. I just have to look at the numerous pages of dross I have to search through on the net when looking for information to see that in most walks of life people either are unable or unwilling to apply these principles.
Nick:
I assume you mean other than the standard ones such as rates, electrolysis, combustion of alcohols etc. One interesting investigation I carried out (just once a long time ago!) was the one about growing crystals. It requires a lot of time and experimenting to get good results but can work well. I'd have to look up the name of the crystals, but I found that if you melted them and put them between two sheets of glass (to constrain them to growing in 2 dimensions) you could get some very nice results. Not a straightforward 5 results repeat 3 times and draw a graph investigation, but probably all the better for that.
Max
8886 GCSE Science Coursework : www.8886.co.uk
I was using the 8/30 marks from the practical assessments (8 marks of Obtaining Evidence) as the rough proportion of marks for "hands on" practical ability. Although, all 8 marks are not for practical work but for drawing and labelling a correct table of results etc. But some marks can also be awarded in the Planning stage when preliminary investigative work has been carried out.
As you say, there are many possible ways that the understanding of practical science could be tested and added to or integrated into the current exams.
Giuseppa:
I am sure you are doing great work with those young children. I've not taught that age range but I don't think different teaching approaches would make much difference to the ability of students by age 15/16 to cope with the current UK practical assessment. In the UK the investigative science method is started on at Primary age range anyway and they still find it difficult.
I recently realised that the principles of scientific investigation apply to just about any subject where you have to research material and then make a judgement on it. It could apply to historical research or just about anything else. Essentially it is about being thorough in your gathering of relevant evidence, analysing it, making conclusions, and evaluating the fairness and worth of everything you have done. I just have to look at the numerous pages of dross I have to search through on the net when looking for information to see that in most walks of life people either are unable or unwilling to apply these principles.
Nick:
I assume you mean other than the standard ones such as rates, electrolysis, combustion of alcohols etc. One interesting investigation I carried out (just once a long time ago!) was the one about growing crystals. It requires a lot of time and experimenting to get good results but can work well. I'd have to look up the name of the crystals, but I found that if you melted them and put them between two sheets of glass (to constrain them to growing in 2 dimensions) you could get some very nice results. Not a straightforward 5 results repeat 3 times and draw a graph investigation, but probably all the better for that.
Max
8886 GCSE Science Coursework : www.8886.co.uk
Atkins Diet
There was an interesting Horizon program on BBC2 last night (22 Jan) about The Atkins diet. Lots of good ideas about the principles of scientific investigation in a topical context. (E.g. having identical twins in sealed chambers for a week. One on a low fat diet, one on the Atkins diet. Taking lots of measurements and then making conclusions and evaluating the experiment.) Selected highlights could be useful as a classroom resource for discussion.
Maybe you could get them to plan an investigation into measuring the phenomenon of "Atkins breath" ?????
Max
There was an interesting Horizon program on BBC2 last night (22 Jan) about The Atkins diet. Lots of good ideas about the principles of scientific investigation in a topical context. (E.g. having identical twins in sealed chambers for a week. One on a low fat diet, one on the Atkins diet. Taking lots of measurements and then making conclusions and evaluating the experiment.) Selected highlights could be useful as a classroom resource for discussion.
Maybe you could get them to plan an investigation into measuring the phenomenon of "Atkins breath" ?????
Max
I'm a sixth grade teacher (11 and 12 year olds) in the states and am reading your discussion with interest. In my school we have done a lot of thinking and talking as science teachers about what real learning in science looks like.
Some realizations we have had about science, hands-on experiments and assessment
1.There are too many topics in science for any one teacher to fully teach any student. We have divided our year into trimesters, where we look at matter one trimester, life the next and energy the last. We use FOSS kits, which follow national standards. They have their drawbacks, but definitely focus on challenging student thinking and forcing them to back up their thinking with experience.
2. Perhaps dealing with one idea in-depth as opposed to many ideas in small ways is important. We try to look at content through the ideas of systems thinking and make a point of giving students experiences with changes in scale and time.
3. The lower grades are places for students to acquire some of the fundamental ideas about their world and how it might work. These fundamentals are the foundation of the work you do at the higher grades. I'd love to hear what concepts/skills you wish students have more experience with in order to better prepare them for your classes/content.
4.
Hands-on labs are a pain for teachers, but they are of value to students. Those learners who take in ideas best kinesthetically gain here, while those who aren't "doers" don't suffer that much. Many of my students who are identified with learning difficulties excel at lab work and are some of my most creative thinkers.
5. Finally, thanks to whoever nodded to the creative thinkers. They have contributed the most to science and scientific thinking, and may not have done that well on their higher level science exams! Ingrid
Some realizations we have had about science, hands-on experiments and assessment
1.There are too many topics in science for any one teacher to fully teach any student. We have divided our year into trimesters, where we look at matter one trimester, life the next and energy the last. We use FOSS kits, which follow national standards. They have their drawbacks, but definitely focus on challenging student thinking and forcing them to back up their thinking with experience.
2. Perhaps dealing with one idea in-depth as opposed to many ideas in small ways is important. We try to look at content through the ideas of systems thinking and make a point of giving students experiences with changes in scale and time.
3. The lower grades are places for students to acquire some of the fundamental ideas about their world and how it might work. These fundamentals are the foundation of the work you do at the higher grades. I'd love to hear what concepts/skills you wish students have more experience with in order to better prepare them for your classes/content.
4.
Hands-on labs are a pain for teachers, but they are of value to students. Those learners who take in ideas best kinesthetically gain here, while those who aren't "doers" don't suffer that much. Many of my students who are identified with learning difficulties excel at lab work and are some of my most creative thinkers. 5. Finally, thanks to whoever nodded to the creative thinkers. They have contributed the most to science and scientific thinking, and may not have done that well on their higher level science exams! Ingrid
Do you think that one trimester allows the students to apprehend about the contents? Energy is the topic,you write, of the last trimester.Every phenomenon in science (physics or chemistry) implies the use of energy and so the life. What about to put this topic at the last?
How can they build their knowledge logically?
In relation to the laboratory activity,it is very important in science and helps the pupils to understand better the theoretical concepts acquired, besoides the fact that they are more stimulated mentally.
In my opinion the knowledge must be built gradually accompanied with the lab pratice.
How can they build their knowledge logically?
In relation to the laboratory activity,it is very important in science and helps the pupils to understand better the theoretical concepts acquired, besoides the fact that they are more stimulated mentally.
In my opinion the knowledge must be built gradually accompanied with the lab pratice.
We seem to have moved away from the necessity and relevance of coursework in examined subject and now has some focus on experimental work as a vehicle for effective learning and understanding of scientific concepts.
How to maximise the benefits of experimental work has been a challenge since the introduction of Nuffield Science Courses in the 1960’s. Then learning by doing was the recommended approach. This from our perspective now, was destined to fail. Courageous steps were taken by the educational pioneers but much appeared to be done without a real understanding of the nature of learning.
In the 1980’s just prior to the introduction of the National Curriculum the emphasis became process rather than content. This was an interesting idea that understanding could be achieved independent of a knowledge core.
The National Curriculum for Science addressed this imbalance but resulted in the content being excessive and the process element requiring the implementation of almost impossible assessment mechanisms. Process became divorced from content.
We now live with this legacy.
In the end our priority is to help students become proficient, scientifically aware citizens.
Examination success may be a measure of this?????????
How to maximise the benefits of experimental work has been a challenge since the introduction of Nuffield Science Courses in the 1960’s. Then learning by doing was the recommended approach. This from our perspective now, was destined to fail. Courageous steps were taken by the educational pioneers but much appeared to be done without a real understanding of the nature of learning.
In the 1980’s just prior to the introduction of the National Curriculum the emphasis became process rather than content. This was an interesting idea that understanding could be achieved independent of a knowledge core.
The National Curriculum for Science addressed this imbalance but resulted in the content being excessive and the process element requiring the implementation of almost impossible assessment mechanisms. Process became divorced from content.
We now live with this legacy.
In the end our priority is to help students become proficient, scientifically aware citizens.
Examination success may be a measure of this?????????
Make science fun – ditch the SATs !
I have been asked to post some ideas under the "debates in education" thread relating to NUT elections but I am also a science teacher who is very concerned at the lack of creativity / excitement / practical activity in too may schools - or as one colleague put it, "why don't science departments smell like they used to ?" !
I know this might be at a tangent to your current debate - but here's something I contributed to another debate on SATs:
Government Ministers worry that too many school students appear to be turned off science and that there is a dire shortage of science graduates wanting to teach. Yet they are sticking to the KS3 SATs that have helped create the dull and dreary science curriculum taught in far too many secondary schools.
As a science teacher, I admit I might be biased, but didn’t science sometimes used to be fun? Even if you didn’t get every equation, wasn’t there a chance to experiment, to find things out for yourself ?
Now, with the pressure of SATs, the textbook is given far more importance than the tripod. SATs don’t just destroy creativity in English. SATs have forced science teachers to concentrate on cramming kids with facts to be tested rather than taking time to investigate or to pursue things that interest the class and the teacher. No wonder many pupils find it boring; many teachers do as well !
Far from retreating, the Government now say they want to give Key Stage 3 tests even more importance by publishing separate league tables for 14-year olds. That will mean more effort spent on “identifying the target group” for booster classes and coaching for the tests rather than meeting the needs of every pupil. We’ve all got to say that enough is enough !
We mustn’t let anyone get the false impression that KS3 SATs are really only a problem in English. In the NUT’s recent survey over half of Year 9 science teachers thought SATs were a bad way of evaluating pupil progress, over three-quarters that they did not help diagnose pupils’ learning needs.
It's time science teachers spoke up - and in the Unions - about how to make a change in the science curriculum.
I have been asked to post some ideas under the "debates in education" thread relating to NUT elections but I am also a science teacher who is very concerned at the lack of creativity / excitement / practical activity in too may schools - or as one colleague put it, "why don't science departments smell like they used to ?" !
I know this might be at a tangent to your current debate - but here's something I contributed to another debate on SATs:
Government Ministers worry that too many school students appear to be turned off science and that there is a dire shortage of science graduates wanting to teach. Yet they are sticking to the KS3 SATs that have helped create the dull and dreary science curriculum taught in far too many secondary schools.
As a science teacher, I admit I might be biased, but didn’t science sometimes used to be fun? Even if you didn’t get every equation, wasn’t there a chance to experiment, to find things out for yourself ?
Now, with the pressure of SATs, the textbook is given far more importance than the tripod. SATs don’t just destroy creativity in English. SATs have forced science teachers to concentrate on cramming kids with facts to be tested rather than taking time to investigate or to pursue things that interest the class and the teacher. No wonder many pupils find it boring; many teachers do as well !
Far from retreating, the Government now say they want to give Key Stage 3 tests even more importance by publishing separate league tables for 14-year olds. That will mean more effort spent on “identifying the target group” for booster classes and coaching for the tests rather than meeting the needs of every pupil. We’ve all got to say that enough is enough !
We mustn’t let anyone get the false impression that KS3 SATs are really only a problem in English. In the NUT’s recent survey over half of Year 9 science teachers thought SATs were a bad way of evaluating pupil progress, over three-quarters that they did not help diagnose pupils’ learning needs.
It's time science teachers spoke up - and in the Unions - about how to make a change in the science curriculum.
I have to agree that science needs to be fun, which is also an argument for labs that are meaningful. As a student, there is a benefit when labs don't turn out the way you thought they would. You need to re-examine what you thought was true about the world and how you believed it worked.
Shattering misconceptions, broadening experiences, promoting teamwork and encouraging greater literacy with writing up lab procedures, (especially the conclusion section), are also arguments for labs. But let's not forget that labs are also the foundations for basic content building that is essential for greater understandings of huge concepts.
For example, density is a concept that students have difficulty understanding, (I teach 11 and 12 year olds), but when they have a hands-on experience, I can hook back to that lab experience to help them make a connection. When yeast metabolizes sugar in a plastic bag and releases carbon dioxide, making the bag puffy, I can connect it to the carbon dioxide cycle on this planet.
Bottom line- science can be interesting and teach important content. Creativity and knowledge on the part of the teacher are important. An educator must always be able to explain why he or she is doing the lab. How does it connect to the bigger goal of creating scientifically literate as well as just plain literate students? I'm now getting off my soapbox. Ingrid
Shattering misconceptions, broadening experiences, promoting teamwork and encouraging greater literacy with writing up lab procedures, (especially the conclusion section), are also arguments for labs. But let's not forget that labs are also the foundations for basic content building that is essential for greater understandings of huge concepts.
For example, density is a concept that students have difficulty understanding, (I teach 11 and 12 year olds), but when they have a hands-on experience, I can hook back to that lab experience to help them make a connection. When yeast metabolizes sugar in a plastic bag and releases carbon dioxide, making the bag puffy, I can connect it to the carbon dioxide cycle on this planet.
Bottom line- science can be interesting and teach important content. Creativity and knowledge on the part of the teacher are important. An educator must always be able to explain why he or she is doing the lab. How does it connect to the bigger goal of creating scientifically literate as well as just plain literate students? I'm now getting off my soapbox.
Ingrid
I remember a previous Head Teacher of mine commenting that he had spent the day with other intelligent people working hard at devising ways to do the impossible. The directive, of course, had been initiated in some government department.
Isn’t this part of the problem that although we as teachers have considerable experience and expertise we still ultimately do as we are told? We’re conformists.
Perhaps to counter this, I still enjoy and come back to the job refreshed when I attend a workshop/conference where my existing ideas about teaching and learning are challenged. I don’t always know best but there some people in influential positions who don’t either.
Isn’t this part of the problem that although we as teachers have considerable experience and expertise we still ultimately do as we are told? We’re conformists.
Perhaps to counter this, I still enjoy and come back to the job refreshed when I attend a workshop/conference where my existing ideas about teaching and learning are challenged. I don’t always know best but there some people in influential positions who don’t either.
Martin's comment...
...indeed! Of course a lot of the smells came about from experiments that are largely banned now! Many of the smelly ones were done in an open laboratory rather than in the fume cupboard, and there was no hint of problems related to handling offal in biology lessons! 'Health and safety' has a lot to answer for. I sometimes wonder how us old science teachers have survived all the exposure to the hazardous substances that we took for granted as being a normal part of our teaching.
To go off on another tangent - we have had a discussion today about the value of using data logging equipment with 11 - 16 year old science students. Is it my imagination or have the 'powers that be' gone rather quiet on this after all the hype that every child should be using such apparatus? Is everyone out there frantically using it in as many lessons as possible? Is it enthusing students? Do they indeed understand what they are doing?
QUOTE
"why don't science departments smell like they used to ?" !
...indeed! Of course a lot of the smells came about from experiments that are largely banned now! Many of the smelly ones were done in an open laboratory rather than in the fume cupboard, and there was no hint of problems related to handling offal in biology lessons! 'Health and safety' has a lot to answer for. I sometimes wonder how us old science teachers have survived all the exposure to the hazardous substances that we took for granted as being a normal part of our teaching.
To go off on another tangent - we have had a discussion today about the value of using data logging equipment with 11 - 16 year old science students. Is it my imagination or have the 'powers that be' gone rather quiet on this after all the hype that every child should be using such apparatus? Is everyone out there frantically using it in as many lessons as possible? Is it enthusing students? Do they indeed understand what they are doing?
QUOTE
I sometimes wonder how us old science teachers have survived all the exposure to the hazardous substances that we took for granted as being a normal part of our teaching.
As a young chemistry teacher (a few years ago) attending subject inset courses I often wondered why there did not seem to be many old chemistry teachers.
To be on the safe side I now teach mostly ICT.
On the other subject of data logging. 30 students 7 data loggers - even a circus of activities was ludicrous. The principle is probably sound, access to sufficient functioning pieces of equipment is the problem.
It is apparently quite acceptable to use simulation software for aspects of GCSE coursework, negating the need to actually do any hands on practical work. This gem has come from an exam board's training session and has therefore, understandably, been taken on board by some teachers. We have some software that can be used in this way and it is quite good to a limited extent.
Has anyone else used such software to conduct coursework exercises? What sort of feedback, if any, has been received from moderators?
Has anyone else used such software to conduct coursework exercises? What sort of feedback, if any, has been received from moderators?
Like any other coursework you have to be able to work out the contribution provided by the student, and the contribution provided by the software. If the software does most of the work the students are limited to a low maximum mark. The more choice the students have in setting up the simulation the more likely it is that they can gain high marks. You would have to evaluate each piece of software on its own merits.
For example, if the simulation produces near perfect results and automatically generates a graph with best fit line the students have done next to nothing themselves. So you can't give them marks for it. There has to be an appropriate level of data processing and analysis at an individual student level.
Given a suitable program I am sure it could work well. I don't have any first hand experience of any simulations so I can't recommend any.
Max
dayala.co.uk/
For example, if the simulation produces near perfect results and automatically generates a graph with best fit line the students have done next to nothing themselves. So you can't give them marks for it. There has to be an appropriate level of data processing and analysis at an individual student level.
Given a suitable program I am sure it could work well. I don't have any first hand experience of any simulations so I can't recommend any.
Max
dayala.co.uk/
Feedback from moderators for simulations. None yet
I submitted material using Crocadile Chemistry software for a neutralisation investigation last year for the first time.
Incidently, I have noticed that the students skills in using the real thing seem better aftera training session on the simulation.
I submitted material using Crocadile Chemistry software for a neutralisation investigation last year for the first time.
Incidently, I have noticed that the students skills in using the real thing seem better aftera training session on the simulation.
We have some software that simulates a limited variety of the usual coursework pieces including resistance, photosynthesis and rates of reaction. We don't tend to use this for whole pieces, rather, as you say Nick, for practice before hand to help with the 'planning and predicting' bits in particular. We have also used it to help provide some data for absentees to work with when they miss all the actual hands on practical sessions.
No moderator has commented on our limited use of simulations to date - perhaps there is so little of it in our submitted sample that it isn't that noticeable.
I don't feel that our software is sufficiently sophisticated to respond to the number variables that a student is likely to introduce into their own work. It is all a bit too 'safe', so results obtained are too perfect. Max is right in saying:
I do think that it is a potential development area, however, if someone has the time, interest, and scientific and technical expertise!
Anyone out there, maybe?
No moderator has commented on our limited use of simulations to date - perhaps there is so little of it in our submitted sample that it isn't that noticeable.
I don't feel that our software is sufficiently sophisticated to respond to the number variables that a student is likely to introduce into their own work. It is all a bit too 'safe', so results obtained are too perfect. Max is right in saying:
QUOTE
The more choice the students have in setting up the simulation the more likely it is that they can gain high marks.
I do think that it is a potential development area, however, if someone has the time, interest, and scientific and technical expertise!
Anyone out there, maybe?
Simulations are mentioned in the Reports from last year:
From the AQA June 2003 GCSE Report, Double Award, Spec B
(I downloaded this from their web site.)
Someone mentioned simulations in another thread, including one available on the web (subscription I think.) The best bet would be to use an existing simulation package if it can be made to work within the GCSE mark system. A good simulation package is a hefty piece of software and would require a considerable investment in money to write it. I'm not sure anyone would consider writing one aimed just at GCSE Coursework because it is unlikely to make much money. If the government overhauls the coursework component, as is rumoured to be the case, then only a fool would sit down and waste lots of time and money on a product that they may not have a market for in 1 or 2 years time.
Max
From the AQA June 2003 GCSE Report, Double Award, Spec B
(I downloaded this from their web site.)
QUOTE
Computer simulations and ICT
The changes to the Mark Descriptors this year specifically enabled computer simulations and web searches to be added to the range of techniques which could be used for investigations. However, the moderators saw very little evidence of such techniques being used.
If computer simulations are used, it is important to remember that the candidate must be allowed to make the same decisions that would have to be made in a 'real life' situation, e.g. choice of equipment, the number and range of readings to be made, and the degree of accuracy with which readings are taken. Programmes that introduce random errors into the readings are more suitable than those that consistently produce exactly the same results.
A few centres were using computer simulations as a method of carrying out preliminary work prior to the main investigation. The advice given however is that, if the main investigation consists of a 'hands-on' approach using laboratory equipment, then so should the preliminary work.
Web searches pose a particular problem with regard to preliminary work. In some cases it may be possible for the candidate to review a number of different sites before selecting the one or ones that are going to be used; it may then be possible to classify this as preliminary work. As with all preliminary work, however, the candidate should indicate how the results of the preliminary work have helped to formulate the final plan.
The changes to the Mark Descriptors this year specifically enabled computer simulations and web searches to be added to the range of techniques which could be used for investigations. However, the moderators saw very little evidence of such techniques being used.
If computer simulations are used, it is important to remember that the candidate must be allowed to make the same decisions that would have to be made in a 'real life' situation, e.g. choice of equipment, the number and range of readings to be made, and the degree of accuracy with which readings are taken. Programmes that introduce random errors into the readings are more suitable than those that consistently produce exactly the same results.
A few centres were using computer simulations as a method of carrying out preliminary work prior to the main investigation. The advice given however is that, if the main investigation consists of a 'hands-on' approach using laboratory equipment, then so should the preliminary work.
Web searches pose a particular problem with regard to preliminary work. In some cases it may be possible for the candidate to review a number of different sites before selecting the one or ones that are going to be used; it may then be possible to classify this as preliminary work. As with all preliminary work, however, the candidate should indicate how the results of the preliminary work have helped to formulate the final plan.
Someone mentioned simulations in another thread, including one available on the web (subscription I think.) The best bet would be to use an existing simulation package if it can be made to work within the GCSE mark system. A good simulation package is a hefty piece of software and would require a considerable investment in money to write it. I'm not sure anyone would consider writing one aimed just at GCSE Coursework because it is unlikely to make much money. If the government overhauls the coursework component, as is rumoured to be the case, then only a fool would sit down and waste lots of time and money on a product that they may not have a market for in 1 or 2 years time.
Max
Checked out the software that we have re science simulations - it doesn't seem to be too pricey if anyone is interested in checking it out. It's supplier is now, apparently, approved as a UK government 'curriculum online' provider. Link is here:
Science simulation software
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else is using it or has seen it.
Science simulation software
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else is using it or has seen it.
Although I am not a fan of long postings I though this was worth the space when I saw its in the TES 'breaking news' section today....
Schools science exam system "failing students"
By John von Radowitz, Science Correspondent, PA News
28/06/2004
School science exams are narrow, simplistic and failing to prepare pupils for their future careers and studies, Britain's leading academic body said today.
The Royal Society said secondary school and college science examinations were not testing the full range of skills and knowledge demanded by employers and universities.
In particular, it criticised "rote" learning and "standardised and predictable experiments".
A report from the Royal Society called on the Government to make the way science is examined more motivating and relevant.
The comments come as the Government undertakes a major overhaul of the education system.
Professor Mick Brown, chairman of the Royal Society's steering group on assessment of school science, said: "Getting pupils to learn to conduct overly simplistic practical scientific experiments, which never go wrong, does not give them a sense of the dynamism of real scientific research.
"We need a system of assessment that fuels pupils' enthusiasm for the subject by opening up this exciting world of problem- solving, discovery and innovation, while at the same time supporting their factual learning."
In the short term, the Society is urging the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Government's exam watchdog, and the awarding bodies which set exams, to encourage testing of a wider range of skills in secondary school science.
The report argues for greater use of continuous assessment by teachers, so that pupils' learning needs can be identified and addressed.
It claims this can be achieved without imposing excessive workloads on teachers and pupils.
"The pressure on teachers to deliver exam 'results' is immense," said Professor Brown.
"Their professional skills and time must be better utilised to teach and assess science in a way that helps pupils succeed in science careers and as informed members of society as well as in exams.
"This means encouraging analytical skills and using an exam as a tool to help pupils learn and become enthused rather than simply as a means to a qualification."
The way in which science learning is examined was crucial because it had a huge influence on a student's interest in the subject, said the report.
This was especially critical with so few students choosing to study physics and chemistry after the age of 16.
A system that perpetuated the idea that sciences are more difficult than other subjects only worsened the problem, said the Royal Society.
The report was based on the findings of a study commissioned from King's College London on the effectiveness of science exams for 14 to 19-year-olds.
Teacher Michael Terry, a member of the Royal Society steering group and curriculum team leader for science at Alexandra Park School in the London Borough of Haringey, said: "As a science teacher I feel very strongly that the existing methods of assessment are failing many of the young people who are studying science.
"Too many students are misled by the existing exam system into thinking that science is mainly about regurgitating uncontentious facts. And many science teachers find themselves unwittingly 'teaching to the test'.
"The assessment arrangements for coursework reinforce this approach.
"Current practice in too many schools has very little to do with scientific investigation and too much to do with helping students meet the exam board criteria."
Isn't this pretty much what what we have all been saying in this thread?
Schools science exam system "failing students"
By John von Radowitz, Science Correspondent, PA News
28/06/2004
School science exams are narrow, simplistic and failing to prepare pupils for their future careers and studies, Britain's leading academic body said today.
The Royal Society said secondary school and college science examinations were not testing the full range of skills and knowledge demanded by employers and universities.
In particular, it criticised "rote" learning and "standardised and predictable experiments".
A report from the Royal Society called on the Government to make the way science is examined more motivating and relevant.
The comments come as the Government undertakes a major overhaul of the education system.
Professor Mick Brown, chairman of the Royal Society's steering group on assessment of school science, said: "Getting pupils to learn to conduct overly simplistic practical scientific experiments, which never go wrong, does not give them a sense of the dynamism of real scientific research.
"We need a system of assessment that fuels pupils' enthusiasm for the subject by opening up this exciting world of problem- solving, discovery and innovation, while at the same time supporting their factual learning."
In the short term, the Society is urging the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Government's exam watchdog, and the awarding bodies which set exams, to encourage testing of a wider range of skills in secondary school science.
The report argues for greater use of continuous assessment by teachers, so that pupils' learning needs can be identified and addressed.
It claims this can be achieved without imposing excessive workloads on teachers and pupils.
"The pressure on teachers to deliver exam 'results' is immense," said Professor Brown.
"Their professional skills and time must be better utilised to teach and assess science in a way that helps pupils succeed in science careers and as informed members of society as well as in exams.
"This means encouraging analytical skills and using an exam as a tool to help pupils learn and become enthused rather than simply as a means to a qualification."
The way in which science learning is examined was crucial because it had a huge influence on a student's interest in the subject, said the report.
This was especially critical with so few students choosing to study physics and chemistry after the age of 16.
A system that perpetuated the idea that sciences are more difficult than other subjects only worsened the problem, said the Royal Society.
The report was based on the findings of a study commissioned from King's College London on the effectiveness of science exams for 14 to 19-year-olds.
Teacher Michael Terry, a member of the Royal Society steering group and curriculum team leader for science at Alexandra Park School in the London Borough of Haringey, said: "As a science teacher I feel very strongly that the existing methods of assessment are failing many of the young people who are studying science.
"Too many students are misled by the existing exam system into thinking that science is mainly about regurgitating uncontentious facts. And many science teachers find themselves unwittingly 'teaching to the test'.
"The assessment arrangements for coursework reinforce this approach.
"Current practice in too many schools has very little to do with scientific investigation and too much to do with helping students meet the exam board criteria."
Isn't this pretty much what what we have all been saying in this thread?
I'm not so sure. There is a lot I would disagree with. This just seems to be a collection of soundbites without much substance. Anyone can throw together the old cliches of "if only teachers did it this way, students would be so much better at...".
Does anyone know how it is possible to get hold of a copy of the original report that is mentioned? I'd like to read it.
Max
Does anyone know how it is possible to get hold of a copy of the original report that is mentioned? I'd like to read it.
Max
Looks like I've found it. Let's see if it is worth reading.
Royal Society, Assessment of Science Learning 14-19
Royal Society, Assessment of Science Learning 14-19
QUOTE (Max dAyala @ Jul 2 2004, 09:20 PM)
Looks like I've found it. Let's see if it is worth reading.
Royal Society, Assessment of Science Learning 14-19
Royal Society, Assessment of Science Learning 14-19
Any reaearch with Paul Black involved is always worth reading.
Guilty on the 1st two counts BUT it is not the teachers fault, its direct result of two factors. (1) pressure to get good results - repeat what you know works and (2) and RARELY DISCUSSED, the demands to produce numbers to match criteria - rarely mentioned and wipes out 95% of all GCSE chemistry.
Broaden the criteria with good 'moderated' mentoring the coursework itself will broaden.
I must confess I've written two extremely well used web pages on the '1st two counts' they were meant to represent a combination of 4 good 'brainstorms' to represent the four criteria for students or new teachers. Opinion is divided on their 'cheat level' BUT I was a long way from what sites like 'revisioncentral' offer which I find disgusting, where you can buy whole pieces of coursework and free subscription if you supply 3 pieces of finished and good grade coursework. I wish it could be covered by the law!
Broaden the criteria with good 'moderated' mentoring the coursework itself will broaden.
I must confess I've written two extremely well used web pages on the '1st two counts' they were meant to represent a combination of 4 good 'brainstorms' to represent the four criteria for students or new teachers. Opinion is divided on their 'cheat level' BUT I was a long way from what sites like 'revisioncentral' offer which I find disgusting, where you can buy whole pieces of coursework and free subscription if you supply 3 pieces of finished and good grade coursework. I wish it could be covered by the law!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.