If I had to write a new science curriculum....

National Curriculum for Science (The AC-G version)

 

I was a science teacher for a decade and have since continued a keen interest in science education through teacher training and educational research.

Michael Gove our new(ish) Minster for Education has today clarified that he wants school subjects to have key facts and knowledge that every school leaver should know. He wants teachers to advise on what this key knowledge is. I do not want to make judgements on this policy, but it has made me think what I would do if given the chance to devise the National Curriculum for Science in England.

In that flight of fantasy I might do a term at least on photosynthesis and plants, a term on the solar system and astronomy and a term doing field work or maybe a year on each, examined by small assessment tasks and a big note book of their learning journey and own scientific discoveries. Loads of practicals: microscopes; telescopes; quadrats; pond-dipping, web searches: Hooke; the Herschels; Fossey; electron microscope images; using large telescope time to view an image; blogging, on going experiments: growing plants in different conditions; mapping sunspots; pupil's own enquiries, it would be amazing. That is amazing for me, but maybe not for pupils needing a rounded science education.

OK, so the NC stays, so what form should it take?

Would I want to go back to the original separate subjects of Biology, Chemistry and Physics throughout Key Stage 3 and 4? The argument for are that science teachers have to teach all three, of which they are only really expert in one when they start training to become a teacher. The argument against this is that at secondary school level, science should be considered interdisciplinary because pupils are too young to choose and that all subjects are required to be a scientific literate citizen. There are probably others.

The list of facts for Science scares me. Teachers would just end up teaching facts, through rote learning, without any need for conceptual understanding. We won't need science teachers, just computer programmes that pupils follow until they get 100% (then maybe they get a prize of doing a practical!).
What is wrong with what we have now? The QCA curriculum is probably over prescribed, but there is some good stuff there. I like the structure, that it accounts for progression of key ideas if taught in a sensible order based progression. I am a big fan of the four (yes, four - interdependence is a political anomaly IMO): Energy, Forces, Particles, Cells (I prefer Life & Survival).

Wynne Harlen has recently (2010) edited Principles and big ideas of science education which proposes the key principles of science (both content and skills) with the

"aim of identifying the key ideas that students should encounter in their science education to enable them to understand, enjoy and marvel at the natural world"

Harlen points out that

"what we teach owes more to history than to new thinking."

This is very true, but I would also argue that history can tell us a lot about conceptual progression of scientific ideas and the key concepts. However, I agree that the science curriculum is very much focused on the past rather than the present and the future.

This international panel decided upon 10 principles of science education and 14 big ideas of science (10 ideas of science and 4 ideas about science).

Is science just a pure discipline where we learn it for the love of learning? Or should it be a requirement that all children leave school scientifically literate whether they go onto studying further science or are a citizen that needs a basic understanding of science.

The 10 principles of science education cover the goals of science education along with the need for formative assessment, evidence based progression of ideas (with benchmarks) as well as crucially the training and development of the teacher including work with practicing scientists.

The training and development of teachers is for me crucial. There are teachers of my generation who I feel have fallen into an existence of lack of professional pride. The government demands of results have turned them into factory farms of exam grades, with just inputs and outputs. Tell me what to teach, I'll teach that and I will ensure that my pupils can get their target grade. They seem to me to have their professional judgement sapped from them, abstaining from responsibility of curriculum design, thinking about what pupils will have been taught previously and even about what they will do in the future. The outcome is all what counts not the process of getting there. When I was teaching in schools and whenever I deliver INSET there are teachers who claim they do not have time to do 'formative assessment', or no time to allow pupils to learn in groups or carry out extended projects because they 'have to get through the curriculum'. This is not everyone, but a lot of teachers are in this frame of mind. It is time to give their professionality back and make them active in the curriculum, rather than passive processors.

Back to the curriculum, Harlen's team come up with perhaps predictability: particles, gravity, forces, energy, earth science & climate, Solar System and universe, cells, energy in food chains, genetics, diversity and evolution. I would argue that any science teacher who did not come up with these would raise serious questions to me! However, it is important to establish the key concepts.

Then the 'Ideas about Science' rightly (in my view) take four points about the processes of science. In recent times, there has been a push to teach through enquiry. In principle I think it is essential that pupils experience practical enquiry, but I do not believe that it should be instead of learning and exploring concepts. I think the learning about key concepts is essential in school science, without a conceptual basis it is impossible to design or carry out meaningful investigations. I really believe that scientific concepts can be developed through guided enquiry, which then allow pupils to carry out their own enquiries to apply the scientific concepts they have learnt. However, in practice, it seems that teachers do teach too much content as facts rather than concepts.

It is important to read to the end of Harlen's report which synthesises the principles and the big ideas into a working curriculum. It is a model I feel is very workable.

So, if you have got this far through my stream of consciousness, you will see that I have realised that I have some key beliefs about what a NC should be and that there should be a NC. Perhaps the NC for science should be a set of guiding principles, but certainly not a list of facts. It is so much easier knowing what it should not be than exactly what it should be! Though the Harlen model seems to me an excellent starting point - it just would have to be seen how teachers use it in practice.

This week the curriculum review panel has been announced. I hope that they use Harlen's report as a basis for science education. What does concern me is that although there will be a NC, free schools and academies will not have to use the NC! So will that mean that every science teacher can teach whatever they like? Will it be back to the times where there is no NC? It is very interesting times.

AC-G

PHOTO SOURCE: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/mediareleases/release.php?id=1435

@theASE Conference 2011 via realtime and Twitter

The annual conference of the Association for Science Education is always one of my highlights of the year. Unlike last year's where snow hampered my stay, Reading this year had a bit of on and off drizzle, but nothing to panic about.

I was very kindly sponsored by the Institute of Physics in their final year of funding for the highly successful Subject Knowledge Enhancement for Physics, which I run at the University of Sussex. It meant that I got to see some of my past trainees who are all fully fledged teachers now.

Anyway, the programme of course, workshops and lectures is always colossal and it is often hard to know what to see. In addition the huge marquee of exhibitors is can also be daunting to navigate. So I decided to let Twitter be my guide. The #ASE2011 tag helped me find a variety of stands and those that I went to were delighted that it was as a result of their tweets!

Here are my highlights:

@theASE it was good this year to have a Twitter presence, I actually put out a tweet for 'hot tips' for Friday afternoon and they replied with some suggestions and a weblink- much appreciated!

@classroommedics http://www.classroommedics.co.uk/science.html had a great interactive stand, with nice lads n lasses in medic gear with their 'patient' on whom you could find pulses. A disembodied arm from which you could draw blood, which was really cool! I can imagine this being amazing for kids of all ages in schools and will really get them thinking about a career in medicine.

@SocGenMicro http://www.microbiologyonline.org.uk/teachers I spoke to Laura who was very excited about the fact that I had found their stall by Twitter. Their factpacks on Swine Flu were flying off their stand, but she also showed me their website. They hope to have some videos of microbiological laboratory techniques very soon, which I think will be very useful in the classroom. I even got a Tweet reply after visiting the stand!

I tweeted in response to visiting the Royal Institution's stall @rigb_science as they were giving away lots of goodies including lipbalm(!).

I was unable to get into the David Attenborough lecture, but was able to see it afterwards via a Tweet from @asober (but orignated by ngfl_cymcru_gcad) with a link to http://www.livestream.com/ngflcymrugcad

A friend and colleague @doc_gnome was unable to attend the conference asked me to check out some exam board stands, which I did. And tweeted an answer back!

There are a few other people who tweeted useful ideas, either shameless self-promotion (good on you) or selfless tweets to raise interest or share experiences (including best give aways!). The @TheASE were very good at retweeting these! @ZoeAndrewsAST @WowScienceSue @LightEmitting @DeclanFleming @scarycurlgirl to mention but a few.
My highlight session was the Bad Science for Schools: Good News is Bad News, led by Ed Walsh & Jo Foster. Excellent resources based on Ben Goldacre's book  'Bad Science'. These have huge potential in adressing scientific literacy and address some of the How Science Works aspects of the curriculum. There was a Twitter flurry at the time between @bengoldacre and others who had attended the course. Ed and Jo have a Twitter presence @cornwallscied but guys, I think you under Tweeted (although you were very busy presenting!).

So what have I learnt from all this? Is Twitter just a little gimmick that can be used at conference for smartphone geeks or is there something more to it? I suspect that there are a huge number of smartphone users and Twitter uses at the ASE Conference. I think this year did raise the profile of a number of stalls and sessions, particularly for me. I wonder though if everyone there Tweeted, we would be overloaded with information! However, it is a live timeline, where you can see what's hot and what's not. I enjoyed a fresh approach to tackling the ASE Conference. I think Twitter has huge opportunity for advertising products, advertising sessions, advertising stalls, professional networking, keeping in touch with people and companies of interest after the event (there are still a few #ASE2011 tweets coming up today, the weekend after). My number of followers increased significantly over the weekend. This year was good, but I think a lot of people are missing a trick.

I am looking forward to next year to see if Twitter has an even greater Tweet presence.
AC-G

My favourite book of 2010

Richard Holmes (2009) The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science.

I have only recently finished this book but it has trumped every other book that I have read this year. It touches on some of things I find fascinating about science, but also goes in depth into some of the areas of science that I love.

It covers a very exciting part of scientific history. The 18th Century. Think long dangerous voyages to new lands - finding new cultures - losing dear friends to disease at sea - Captain Cook being eaten by cannibals - the first hot air balloons - the discovery of new and elusive elements - the painstaking study of the skies - the discovery of a new planet - the early days of the Royal Institution - Humphrey Davy - dangerous laboratory experiments - science discoveries saving lives - scientific rivalry - eccentric men and women - love affairs - injury - illness - death. The world and the universe becoming bigger than we ever imagined.

It opens with the expedition of Joseph Banks, a prominent character throughout the book. For some reason I have always had a soft spot for Sir Banks. I often find men who have an enthusiasm for the natural world attractive. Joe seems to have a mysterious air about his love life, got up to all sorts of naughties on his travels, but remained intelligent and passionate about all aspects of natural philosophy. Incidentally a fictional book that I read in Madeira a few years ago, plots out a missing part of his love life (Martin Davies's (2006) The Conjurer's Bird, Hodder Paperbacks). Part of the book is set in Madeira and the description of Banks as a character are really fascinating.

In terms of teaching science this is a beautiful book, really focussed on a very important and exciting part of scientific history. Fits in well with How Science Works. Particulaly APP AF2 with new technologies (Davy's Lamp), solving scientific problems. Historical contexts, especially the role of women in science and the contribution of Caroline Herschel to the discovery of comets.

Also how Science Doesn't Work - Hershel particularly tells a very different story to his discovery of Uranus compared with his original notebooks. The human nature to exaggerate or embellish actual events is common, but not often recorded as starkly.



AC-G

2011 Sharing my thoughts

I'm not one for New Year's Resolutions, but I am one for setting myself goals. At least then I have something to aim for, even if I don't make them.

This coming year has a lot of challenges and hopefully opportunities.

In the political world, education is going to have some serious changes occuring. I am somewhat skeptical of Mr. Gove's vision of education, though I am also looking forward to taking my part in meeting the challenges of change over the next twelve months. Having had the opportunity to step back from education in schools, I do see political change as just one social experiment after another. From a distance, it's interesting to see the effects, but when you're caught up in it, it can be more frustrating. I think the best thing that teachers could do with is no interferance for the next five years - just let them teach and encourage the sharing and evaluation of good practice. No politician will let that happen though.

In my professional world I can see this year is going to transitional. I am hopefully going to be a fully fledged educational researcher by name by the end of the year. Having successfully completed my doctorate, I aim to get one or two papers published from it. I also have just got a small research role evaluating Transition between KS2 and KS3 science and I am also exploring other opportunities for research. I might even go full-time if the right post comes up.

I will continue to write for Badger Publishing. I have six titles to co-write for GCSE 2011. I'm already well into these and enjoying being creative with the new tasks. Also writing with a new-found co-author, Dr. Mark Evans, an Science AST - makes life so much easier and challenging (in a good way).

Personally I hope to have a healthy year, spending quality time with family and friends. Maybe a bit of travel. Being excited by exisiting and new feathered, furry and scaly visitors to my bird table. And maybe by the end of this year, I may be ready to adopt a child...

Watch this space...

Happy New Year

AC-G