Issues in Science Teaching

John Sears, Pete Sorenson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781134565566
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

Issues in Science Teaching covers a wide range of important issues which will interest teachers at all phases in the education system. The issues discussed include:

• the nature and purposes of science education in a multicultural society, including the idea of science for all
• the role and purposes of investigational work in science education
• assessment, curriculum progression and pupil attitudes to their science experience
• supporting basic skills development in literacy, numeracy and ICT, through science teaching
• supporting cross-curricular work through science teaching
• taking account of individual differences including ability, special needs, learning style and the case for inclusion

The articles are strongly based on current research and are intended to stimulate and broaden debate among the readers. Written by practising science educators and teachers, this book offers new and interesting ways of developing science education at all levels.

1 The science curriculum

What is it for?

Tony Turner

Introduction

The introduction to the National Curriculum (DES 1988a) and subsequent Acts has caused significant changes in teaching and learning and in the management of schools. These changes include a compulsory core curriculum for pupils aged 5–16, comprising English, mathematics and science. All schools have had to improve their performance; in secondary school this is measured by the number of pupils achieving five A–C grades in the GCSE and, at the end of Key Stage 3, the number achieving Level 5 in the Standard Assessment Tasks. Other judgements are also made, but it is to the academic standards that OFSTED and parents pay prime attention.

One consequence of the focus on academic performance has been the narrowing effect on teaching through pressure to teach to examinations (Millar and Osborne 1998). The publication of league tables based on public examination results, combined with OFSTED Inspection Reports, has led to improved performance in public examinations but accompanied by a growing competitive ethos between schools. Following publication of league tables, there has emerged a policy of threatening underperforming schools with closure. Unsurprisingly, some teachers are angered by this policy, and a few politicians are dismayed (Carvel 1999). Nevertheless, many underperforming schools have been ‘turned round’ by their staff after a poor OFSTED Report.

Science and the school curriculum

The present school curriculum is similar to the grammar school curriculum of the post-Second World War period, possibly the very curriculum which present-day legislators themselves successfully experienced as pupils. Both curricula are based around academic subjects, designed for an able minority. Although the content of many subjects has changed, teaching methods developed a little in response to new understandings about ways pupils learn and new technologies become available to support teachers and pupils, the main thrust of teaching remains the introduction of pupils to the knowledge and concepts of academic subjects.

As one historian of education has noted, the 1988 National Curriculum bears a remarkable resemblance to that established in 1904 (Aldrich 1988). Both curricula are subject based with many subject names identical; one difference is that music is now part of the curriculum. Differences in the presentation of subjects have, of course, appeared as well as changes in content. A less sexist approach to the education of boys and girls prevails today. The subject model of the school curriculum that has dominated much of the twentieth century has continued into the twenty-first century despite the absence of an adequate rationale for the choice of this curriculum model (O’Hear and White 1991; QCA 1999a). This situation is not unexpected given the continuing commitment of government ministers and their advisers to traditional subjects and traditional ways of teaching. The academic bias of the school curriculum has been cited by the OECD as a contributing factor to the UK’s poor record in providing an appropriately educated workforce (Atkinson and Elliott 2000)

It is not surprising, then, that the present secondary school science curriculum is similar to the former GCE O-level syllabuses for biology, chemistry and physics. The science curriculum focuses on its constituent subjects as academic disciplines and is less concerned with the application of science, the relation of science to technology or how science and society interact. The 1995 science curriculum was a course in fundamental science knowledge, largely neglecting, for example, the issues, challenges and excitement of contemporary science or the way scientists work and validate their findings.

In the 1999 version of the science curriculum, Science 2000 (DfEE 1999c), important changes have been made, broadening the role of scientific investigations and introducing aspects of the nature of science and the ways in which scientists work. These changes have been incorporated into Science Inquiry (the new Sc1). This, the fourth version of the Science Curriculum since 1988, essentially retains the structure of the 1995 version (DfE 1995a), which comprised a Programme of Study (PoS) for each Key Stage, itself made up of four strands and preceded by an introductory statement.

In the 1995 curriculum, the introductory statement identified five overarching themes for the PoS. The same five headings were employed for each Key Stage, although the content of each statement changed and developed in depth through KS1 to KS4. These introductory statements became known unofficially as ‘ScO’. In Science 2000, some of these themes have been transferred to Scientific Inquiry, while others have been moved out of the main PoS; for example, Health and Safety and Communication, both of which now appear towards the end of the document as additional skills and knowledge to be incorporated through Sc1–Sc4. In summary, the former ‘Sc0’ has gone from all Key Stages and replaced by a brief statement at the beginning of each Key Stage. In addition, the science curriculum as a whole is introduced by a statement explaining the importance of science to the education of young people. This statement may be read as a justification for the place of science in the school curriculum. This justification includes:

• satisfying pupils’ curiosity about the world;

• stimulating pupils’ curiosity and providing outlets for it;

• developing creative thinking;

• understanding how scientific ideas and knowledge contribute to changes in society and improvement in the quality of life;

• the cultural significance of science now, in the past, and in the future.

Such aspirations are difficult to fault. However, at first reading of the science curriculum document, both the choice of content and its arrangement (of three subject areas together with an investigative dimension) are not justified by the writers in terms of those aspirations. The structure and content appears as self-evidently appropriate to achieve the aims.

There are further concerns when the assessment dimension of the science curriculum is considered. The Attainment Targets, containing Level Statements, relate to the four strands of the PoS and are designed to describe the performance of pupils and hence identify and monitor progression. The Level Statements for Scientific Inquiry now include aspects of the history of science and the nature of scientific evidence. However there is scant reference to either of these topics in the Attainment Targets for Sc2–Sc4, the biology, chemistry and physics content; the link between inquiry and content is weak. This weakness will encourage teachers to continue to focus on inquiry as a unique element of assessment, separate from and discontinuous with the content. The assessment of the science curriculum remains focused on a body of subject knowledge encapsulated by Sc2–Sc4 of the PoS at Key Stages 3 and 4. This body of knowledge is, furthermore, largely devoid of the important aspirational statements used to justify the science curriculum noted earlier.

The revised science curriculum claims to place greater emphasis on contemporary science and the application of science (QCA 1999d: 5). However, the Attainment Targets scarcely refer to these ideas. The Level Statements are used to judge pupil performance from the evidence of pupils’ work; teachers are not, therefore, encouraged to include contemporary science or its applications in their teaching. It appears that the new science curriculum is no better placed than its forbears to encourage and enthuse pupils and teachers. The science curriculum appears to ignore its asserted purposes, but maybe that is not surprising when the aims are listed as non-statutory.

In a study of science teachers’ (n=320) choice of activities in their teaching of the National Curriculum, by far the most frequently reported activity was ‘practical work in groups’ closely followed by ‘scientific investigations for assessment’ (Donnelly and Jenkins 1999). The authors conclude that ‘the priorities identified by teachers in this study are those which have characterized secondary school science teaching in England and Wales throughout much of the twentieth century’ (Donnelly and Jenkins 1999: 6). This finding suggests that the focus of practical work in science is identified mainly with assessment, which narrows the range of strategies and activities to which pupils are exposed.

In view of the changes in society over, say, the last fifty years, in the growth of our understanding of the natural world, our ability to manipulate the living and non-living world, the extraordinary developments in communications technology and in access to information, the stability of the science curriculum is remarkable. It is hard to see how Science 2000 can be any more attractive to pupils now than its predecessors, one effect of which was to turn pupils away from studying science post-16. An added factor is the pressure placed on pupils (and teachers) to perform well in public tests, which has led to more intensive ‘teaching for the test’ than before. Responding mainly to pressures of examinations is not a good way to develop interest and excitement in any subject, much less promote understanding. The 1995 NC science and Science 2000 implicitly support the continuation of traditional methods of teaching science despite the rhetoric of ministers that teachers and teaching methods must change. If, for example, ICT is really to have an effect on teaching and learning, this is possible only if the curriculum changes. The emphasis on recall of a narrow range of facts needs to be replaced by a teaching and assessment framework which allows teachers to use a wider range of strategies and skills. In this way, pupils may develop enthusiasm for, and improved understanding of, science.

What do teachers think of NC science?

OFSTED inspections focus on the performance of science teachers. An OFSTED inspection is a one-way exercise and does not report the views of teachers about the curriculum, their resources or their perceived conditions of work.

In a recent study of secondary schools (n=500) the views of teachers of history and science were sought concerning changes in their practice since the introduction of the National Curriculum (Donnelly and Jenkins 1999). Some views of the science teachers are reported here. Science teachers recognised some positive features arising from the introduction of the NC but far more negative factors were cited. One finding was the wide range of experience and views expressed by teachers, which may reflect the particular circumstances of each school, its pupils and staff.

Among the positive features of the effects of the NC has been the improved coherence of the science curriculum. Other positive effects included increased collaboration between science staff and more demands placed on technical staff. The authors suggest that the NC has led teachers to clarify better their lesson objectives, spend more time planning lessons and using Schemes of Work. Teachers now pay closer attention to record keeping and monitoring of pupil progress, with better feedback to pupils suggesting improved accountability. These are all features of progress but, as the authors point out, by themselves these factors do not constitute progress unless learning is enhanced.

Science teachers (n=358) were asked to rate the importance of aims in teaching science in secondary school, selecting from a list (generated from interviews with science teachers) using a four-point scale ranging from irrelevant to very important. The aims listed in order of importance were:

• the teaching of skills and processes

• pupils’ enjoyment of science

• establishing good relationships with pupils

• success in examinations

• ‘teaching science content’

• ‘making science relevant’

All six items were rated between important and very important.

When a smaller sample of science teachers were interviewed and invited to identify their own aims, as distinct from selecting from a list, a different order of priority appeared (see Table 1.1).

The data show that teachers hold a wide range of opinion about the aims of science teaching. More importantly, the differences in priority suggested by the two sets of data might also point to differences in what science teachers believe to be important in the teaching of science as opposed to what is important in their daily work under the NC. They may also be influenced by what they think is expected of them when selecting items from lists.

If we extrapolate from the small sample to include most science teachers, then clearly the effect of the NC on teaching science is to focus on the content and process of science in order to pass examinations with less importance attached to the social setting of the classroom. Enjoyment of science lessons and establishing good relationships is a low priority among the sample of teachers interviewed (less than 20 per cent of teachers expressed these aims (see Table 1.1)). It is of interest that when teachers were asked to select aims from a list, the importance of social factors was given a high priority as well as that of passing examinations, suggesting that to these teachers the former are a necessary prerequisite to the latter.

In the same study, teachers (n=358) were asked to rank factors in lesson planning which were important to them, again selecting from a list. Top of the list was mental planning, closely followed by a requisition list to technicians, resources and a SoW. All four items were rated as important to very important. A written plan was identified as important by far fewer teachers. The choice of requisition list underscores the emphasis placed by teachers on practical activities as the means of teaching science. It is not surprising, then, that when teachers were invited to rate the frequency with which they used particular strategies in the laboratory, practical work, Sc1 investigations and the provision of pupil worksheets were rated as important to very important. We return later to the role of practical work in science teaching. However, it is interesting to note that, in this study, ‘using Sc1 investigations to teach skills and processes’ was ranked equally with ‘copying from the board’. The use of ICT was rated between not very important and irrelevant; information technology was used about as frequently as taking pupils on industrial visits.

Table 1.1 Teachers’ aims for science (n=31)

Source: Donnelly and Jenkins (1999): 4

One of the crucial findings of this research relates to the attitudes science teachers now adopt in relation to their role in teaching science. Science teachers reported their loss of fun in teaching science and reduced enjoyment by pupils. Whereas the criterion of enjoyment may not be a national priority it is of concern that science teachers in this study report an inability to respond to individual pupils, especially those with special needs. The reported loss in teachers’ capacity to pursue science of interest to the pupils – for example in their locality – is also worrying. The statements used by these teachers to describe their feelings about teaching the National Curriculum are revealing. For example:

• pupils jumping though hoops

• teach much more academic science (now) to the lower ability groups

• much less time to teach the relevance of science in their (the pupils) everyday lives

• I am totally de-motivated by the constant reference to target setting, monitoring and evaluation.

(Donnelly and Jenkins 1999: 10–14)

An evaluation of the Key Stage 3 Tests in English, mathematics and science has drawn attention to the constraints placed on teaching and learning by these tests. The report raises doubts about the reliability and validity of the tests and their fairness towards pupils with language limitations (ATL 1999).

The picture painted of teaching science under the National Curriculum, together with the associated assessment demand and the use made of it by government, is of a curriculum made narrow by the pressures to succeed, and a teaching force which sees itself as being deskilled by the constraints placed upon it and less able to respond to pupil needs and interests.

Science conte...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Notes on contributors
• Introduction to the series
• Introduction
• 1 The science curriculum: what is it for?
• 2 Teaching science in a multicultural, multi-faith society
• 3 The irresistible rise of the nature of science in science curricula
• 4 Primary science: a second-class core subject?
• 5 Balanced science: a battle still to be won?
• 6 Lifelong learning in science: dream or reality?
• 7 Understanding evidence in investigations: the way to a more relevant curriculum?
• 8 SC1: beyond the fair test
• 9 Numeracy in science: understanding the misunderstandings
• 10 Developing the literate scientist
• 11 Health education is unavoidable
• 12 The use of cognitive ability testing to set targets
• 13 Drowning in numbers? The need for formative assessment
• 14 Between the idea and the reality falls the shadow: provision for primary–secondary science curricular continuity
• 15 Children’s attitudes to science: beyond the men in white coats
• 16 Non-judgemental differentiation: teaching and learning styles for the future
• 17 Are gender differences in achievement avoidable?
• 18 Ability grouping: what is the evidence?
• 19 A challenging curriculum for the more able pupil
• 20 Science for all: the challenge of inclusion
• 21 Information and communications technology in science education: a long gestation
• Bibliography
• Index