Science notes Is teacher innovation on the verge of Ian Kinchin 16 extinction? Mapping the Key Stage 3 National Puni Selvaratnam 19 Science Strategy Framework: interdependence, particles, energy and forces Is teacher innovation on the verge of extinction? Ian Kinchin When I started teaching in 1984, I was already a member of the Association for Science Education. When School Science Review arrived every quarter, I was always particularly keen to flick through the Science Notes in the hope that I would find a golden nugget that I could use in my own classes. Often I did. However, over the years the number of Science Notes has declined (Figure 1). This is not a blip over one or two years, but a steady decline from a peak in 1987/1988 (volume 69). Extrapolation of the trend line added to the graph suggests that the Science Notes section of the journal is destined for extinction within the next few years. The contributions published in Science Notes have varied considerably in scope and size. Some are only a single paragraph long, whilst others span several pages and are thoroughly referenced. Many are authored by classroom teachers, whilst others are written by university academics. I have always taken the Science Notes as evidence that colleagues were thinking about their teaching and devising new and innovative approaches to classroom practice. If the number of such contributions is in decline, does this indicate a decline in teacher-initiated classroom innovation? I decided to consider possible reasons for the observed decline from an average of 35 Notes per issue in volume 67 (1985/86), to an average of five per issue in volume 83 (2001/02). There have been various changes in the journal over the years that may have masked any underlying pattern. In volume 66, there was a change from Biology, Chemistry and Physics Notes to Science Notes. This was to reflect the rise in integrated science teaching and to accommodate items on geology and astronomy (Bishop, 1984). This change did not seem to have any immediate impact upon the overall number of Notes published. In volume 69, GCSE Assessment Notes were included as an additional section to reflect concerns with the newly introduced examination system. Volume 78 saw the end of Science Education Notes, with many contributions that would have been published in this section being published as full articles. This change would only have accounted for three or four contributions per issue, and Figure 1 suggests that the decline was already well underway by this time. Are Notes still needed? Perhaps as science teaching was changing, the type of contribution included in Science Notes also had to change. In examining the Notes, some groups emerge: Those that encourage colleagues to get their BBC computers and/or VELA interfaces to do something useful. The explosion of ICT over the past 20 years means that BBC computers have long since become obsolete. The idea of writing out a program in BBC BASIC now seems very antiquated. Just as the machinery under the bonnets of our cars is now too complicated for the majority of us to understand, so the inner 16 School Science Review, December 2004, 86 (315)
Number of science notes 150 100 50 0 65 70 75 80 85 SSR volume Figure 1 Graph illustrating the decline of contributions in the Notes sections of volumes of School Science Review from 1983 (volume 65 ) to the present. This includes Science Notes, Science Education Notes and GCSE Assessment Notes. Most volumes of SSR consist of four issues except: volume 69 = 5 issues; volume 71 = 3 issues. workings of our computers are such that most of us now use computers more and more, but understand what goes on inside them less and less. With most of our pupils being at least as computer literate as their teachers, and with most computer help and advice now available online, perhaps this sort of Science Note really has had its day? Those that describe aspects of natural history, such as keys to groups of animals or plants, or aspects of fieldwork. I always considered such contributions to indicate that there are real biologists in schools. However, modern biology seems to be mostly chemistry: lamentably, the study of whole organisms does seem (for one reason or another) to be a thing of the past. Thanks to the demands of GCSE specifications, many teenagers now know more about polar bears and camels than about anything they might actually encounter in their local habitats. Those that encourage you to build a simplified widget out of shoe boxes and string. These contributions were always very popular as they showed a way of obtaining a piece of apparatus that otherwise the department would not be able to afford. I cannot imagine that the prices quoted by equipment suppliers have dropped so significantly in real terms that everything schools may want is now affordable. Therefore, I presume that either practical work is now such a low priority that apparatus is just not needed anymore, or that teachers no longer have the time to tinker in the prep. room. Those that delve into technical aspects of science (particularly chemistry). Such contributions would often question textbooks, query practical procedures or offer new interpretations of observed phenomena. Has school chemistry been slimmed down so much that what is left does not warrant such discussion? A series of 20 contributions by G. W. Shaw that supplied a reading list for A-level biologists. The last of these appeared in issue 252 (Shaw, 1989). I have thought for some time that the art of reading around the subject had long-since died out. AS/ A2 students now have course guides rather than textbooks, and this has added to the problem. So there may be many valid reasons why certain types of Science Note are no longer included. But why have they not been replaced by notes that focus on contemporary issues in the classroom? The value of Science Notes The Science Notes section of School Science Review is a good starting point for wannabe authors to begin publishing. My own writing started with a Science Note (Kinchin, 1985), though critics may cite this as reason enough not to shed a tear at the passing of such contributions! I have also found it a slot for which exceptionally talented pupils could be encouraged to rewrite their projects in a format for publication (e.g. Kinchin and Keeler, 1996; Hutton and Kinchin, 2002). I am not worried about the loss of Science Notes out of some romantic nostalgia for the good old days, but rather I worry about it being a symptom of something more seriously wrong within science education. For example, is there less diversity in the practical science undertaken in schools today? I keep hearing anecdotes from colleagues that there are only seven (reports vary from 5 to 10) different practical activities commonly used in Sc1 investigations throughout the country, and that this is often the only significant practical work undertaken at key stage 4 (unless the school is being inspected!). The pattern of decline illustrated in Figure 1 suggests that the introduction of the National Curriculum at the end of the 1980s played a role in discouraging teachers from submitting Science Notes (note the dip in Notes in volumes 70 and 71). Even now, colleagues tell me that they feel constrained by the National Curriculum rather than empowered by it. Other initiatives (notably the QCA scheme of work) may also have had a narrowing effect on the School Science Review, December 2004, 86 (315) 17
curriculum, making some colleagues feel that their role has been reduced to that of curriculum technicians, delivering something that someone else has put together. What of current impositions? I personally regard the Key Stage 3 National Strategy materials as some of the best materials to come out of the DfES at any time during my career. However, an unreflective and formulaic approach to this initiative that involves mechanically writing lesson objectives on the board, and ensuring that every lesson includes a starter, main activity and plenary whatever the context, will continue the trend of de-professionalising teaching. Over the past 20 years, the population of science teachers will have changed as older colleagues have retired and others have been recruited. So have we recruited teachers who are no longer interested in sharing ideas with colleagues? Or are head teachers so desperate to retain good scientists that they are all promoted to positions of whole-school responsibility and no longer have time to focus on their science teaching? Perhaps our younger colleagues would prefer to go online and Ask Jeeves when they are looking for classroom ideas, rather than flick through back copies of a journal? I do not know the answers to these questions, but if our current science teachers do not have the enthusiasm for communicating science demonstrated by their predecessors through the pages of Science Notes, we should not be surprised that pupils are turning away from science once they leave the compulsory sector. Answers on a postcard please, but please submit a contribution to Science Notes at the same time. References Bishop, A. A. (1984) Editorial. School Science Review, 66(234), 5 6. Hutton, T.A. M. and Kinchin, I. M. (2002) Observing the antimicrobial effects of plastic impregnated with triclosan. School Science Review, 84(306), 119 121. Kinchin, I. M. (1985) Apparatus for propagating cuttings. School Science Review, 67(238), 74. Kinchin, I. M. and Keeler, S. (1996) Preliminary observations on the use of trehalose to stabilise rennin during desiccation. School Science Review, 78 (282), 61 62. Shaw, G. W. (1989) A reading list for A- and S-level biology. Part XX. School Science Review, 70 (252), 67 70. Ian M. Kinchin taught science in a variety of secondary schools before moving into teacher-training. He currently lectures within King s Institute of Learning and Teaching, King s College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8WA. E-mail: ian.kinchin@kcl.ac.uk Editor s note: This article was received and reviewed under the editorship of Mick Nott. 18 School Science Review, December 2004, 86 (315)
Mapping the Key Stage 3 National Science Strategy Framework: interdependence, particles, energy and forces Puni Selvaratnam The National Strategy Framework for Science sets out yearly teaching objectives for years 7, 8 and 9 in five key ideas: cells, interdependence, particles, forces and energy: The yearly teaching objectives are central to the pupils achievement in science. They help pupils to make connections across the range of knowledge, understanding and skills that they meet in science lessons. They are set out alongside each other to help you to identify progression. (DfES, 2002) The teaching objectives within each year are given only in a linear text format; there is no cross-linking indicated between the objectives of subsequent years to show progression at a glance. A progression map would help pupils to make connections across the Organisms Species Taxonomy Animal groups Habitat Daily and Plant groups seasonal changes Food chain Food web Modes of feeding Adaptations Flow of energy Pyramid of Abundance numbers and distribution of organisms SUN Photosynthesis Human food production Sustainable Environment Agricultural development toxins Figure 1 Progression map of KS3 Science Strategy key idea: Interdependence. School Science Review, December 2004, 86 (315) 19
range of knowledge, understanding and skills that they meet in science lessons. Kinchin (2003) states: Transforming this material into a progression map is relatively straightforward. His progression map, based on the summary of yearly teaching objectives for cells, set me on a train of thought and inspired me to construct similar maps for the other four key ideas (Figures1 4). I have followed closely the yearly teaching objectives given on pages 27 30 (p. 27, Interdependence; p. 28, Particles; p. 29, Forces; p. 30, Energy) of the Framework document (DfES, 2002). The routes in these maps represent my understanding of the DfES documentation and may not be the best, but I hope they will trigger useful dialogues among teachers and learners inside and outside classrooms. Matter Solids, liquids, Compressibility, expansion, diffusion, gases atmospheric pressure, changes of state, dissolving Particle model Crystalisation and movement through cell membranes The atom Elements Symbols and formulae Compounds Chemical Rearrangement Neutralisation of reactions of atoms acids and bases Energy change Limited number Prediction of Reactions of of ways names and metals formulae of products Conservation of Word and symbol Reactivity mass equations series Figure 2 Progression map of KS3 Science Strategy key idea: Particles. 20 School Science Review, December 2004, 86 (315)
Energy Living and non- Fuels (food) living systems SUN Energy resources Fuel crisis Energy transfer Electric current Electric circuits Cell Potential difference Heating Temperature difference Particles Radiation Convection Conduction Evaporation Light Propagation Reflection Refraction Absorption Sound Vibration Amplitude Generation of Transmission Frequency Conservation of electricity from Production energy primary sources Reception Impact on environment Energy efficiency Figure 3 Progression map of KS3 Science Strategy key idea: Energy. School Science Review, December 2004, 86 (315) 21
Forces Stationary and moving objects Magnitude and Mass Gravity direction Balanced and unbalanced forces Weight Planets Forces of Magnets Electromagnets attraction and repulsion Magnetic field Artificial and Friction Movement in natural satellites liquids and gases Streamlining Turning effect = Moment = Devices moment force x distance with pivots Force per unit area = pressure Pressure by solids; pressure within liquids and gases Figure 4 Progression map of KS3 Science Strategy key idea: Forces. References DfES (2002) Key Stage 3 National Strategy Framework for teaching science: years 7, 8 and 9. London: Department for Education and Skills. Kinchin, I. M. (2003) Mapping the Key Stage 3 National Science Strategy: Cells. Journal of Biological Education, 38 (1), 30 31. Puni Selvaratnam taught science at secondary schools in Sri Lanka and the UK. E-mail: shiyammy@yahoo.co.uk 22 School Science Review, December 2004, 86 (315)