Mr Hood’s recent blog post on the impact of CfE on science teaching has genuinely taken me by surprise. He argues that CfE spells the end for integrated science lessons in the lower school. It seems so obvious to me that CfE means quite the opposite to this that it had not even occurred to me that it would be possible to see it any other way. What has surprised me even more is that some teachers seem to agree with this in their comments. This has provoked me to write this post outlining my reasons for seeing CfE as a major opportunity to develop interdisciplinary learning in secondary science lessons.
For me, Curriculum for Excellence is about involving pupils in their own learning in a broad and balanced curriculum which allows for personalisation and making cross-curricular links. My understanding is that there is now a large body of research which suggests that this approach to learning not only engages and motivates more of those children who are switched off by the current curriculum, but also raises attainment in those who continue on to sit certificated courses. In other words, this benefits all pupils.
As secondary teachers, we tend to see school through the prism of higher results. We also tend to assume that in order to improve higher results in our subject, we need to start teaching them in a way which best suits the higher exam as early as possible. So we biologists want to teach them only biology from S1 and develop courses which train them for standard grade and so on to higher. Unfortunately this has a number of unintended negative side effects.
- Those pupils who have no intention of ever sitting higher biology do not experience courses which engage and motivate them. They misbehave, fail the tests and learn that they “were no good at biology at school”.
- Those that do continue onto standard grade and higher will have covered biology content in isolation and fail to see the links with chemistry, physics, maths, english, geography, history…They tend to have a fairly narrow view of the subject.
- Due to the lack of time which results from carving up the sciences (one period per week) the pupils rarely get to really explore the subject in any breadth or depth. The teacher can barely get a chance to learn the names of all the classes properly, never mind encouraging pupils to take ownership of their own learning.
- Also as a result of the lack of time, lessons tend to focus on content over skills. If you only have them for an hour each week, you tend to want to get through the biology rather than spend time developing their literacy/numeracy/ICT/group work/enterprise…skills.
So how do I see science in the lower school then? My vision of this is still growing and changing as I get to grips with CfE myself. I concede that for most schools it would probably be best to to have integrated science courses for just S1 and S2 and separating in S3. I also don’t think I object to possibly allowing some choice between S2 and S3 - possibly permitting dropping of one science and giving a little more time to the remaining two.
In S1-2, I envisage an interdisciplinary approach whereby the pupils progress through a number of what might once have been called topics. At Stoneyhill they now call them I.D.E.A.s (I think this stands for InterDisciplinary Experiences and Activities) which I quite like. So, we might start with “Space” followed by “Earth” then “Life” and so on. Each of these would begin with the some sort of starter lesson(s) to get the pupils into the subject and for them and the teacher to find out what they already know and what they can already do. From this point the class would then enter a planning phase with groups working out what they need/want to learn about and what skills they could develop. They could also work out what links they can make within the sciences and to other subjects. They could set the learning intentions and suggest ways they would assess whether they had met these. From all of this, the teacher would put together a plan and share this with the class.
In this plan, would it matter that I’m a biology teacher when we’re learning about space? Can a physics teacher teach life? I really don’t see this as an issue at all. For sure, when I’m teaching biology I can add to the learning experience in ways a physicist might not - however this is not always beneficial. It is possible that as a biologist I get too hung up on the subject content when teaching biology in S1, when really I should be placing a greater emphasis on skills. I also believe that when I’m teaching physics or chemistry, although I can not bring as much subject expertise as a specialist, I bring other qualities instead. For example, I find that as I’m learning the subject a little too, I have a bit more enthusiasm when I come across something new. By being honest with the pupils, I think this also demonstrates that us teachers do not “know everything” and aren’t there to simply impart knowledge, but help guide learning. And there’s always a few chemistry and physics graduates conveniently nearby if I get stuck!
It really is time for us secondary teachers to stop focusing so heavily on exam results and allowing it to drive what we do in S1. A small percentage of the pupils we teach in S1 will end up sitting higher in our subject, so we must not allow that exam to dictate the way we teach those kids. Although it is frustrating that we don’t yet know how the new exams will look, in some ways this is a good thing. Otherwise, that’s all we’d be looking at and preparing S1-3 accordingly. And anyway, the research shows that learning about learning and encouraging pupils to think and make links actually improves exam results.
It is time to approach learning in secondary schools in a new way. This is as scary as it is exciting, but it has to be done. For some schools these changes will lead to a move away from discrete sciences in S1/2, however I feel that this is necessary to meet the aspirations of Curriculum for Excellence.
Fearghal,
Well argued, I think, but your logic equally applies to the teaching of French or Home Economics by a Physics teacher. I’d enjoy this, but only in the please-take sense. I teach the subject of physics because of what I see as it’s importance in cognitive development and because I know it well enough to sustain my engagement in it. This gives me depth: a depth that you cannot have unless to sustain the same interest, in which case, you’d be a physics teacher, not a biology teacher. This depth is *required* by aCfE.
Thanks for taking the time to add the balance to the debate: there’s more to come, I hope. I agree that aCfE ought to stir up the hornet’s nest of pedagogy in Scotland.
Nick
I’m surprised that you equate the relationship between physics and french to physics and biology. Physics and biology are both sciences, french is not. In S1/2 it should possible to teach ’science’ if you are a science teacher. It is as much about the process of science as it is about content. Actually, under CfE it’s more about the processes than the content.
I really don’t think that it is unreasonable for a science graduate to teach science in S1/2.
Also, surely we have to accept the fact that it is not beneficial for pupils to have three science teachers instead of one and spend only one hour per week with each of them?
This is a very interesting dialogue.
I am putting my teaching hat back on for this discussion.
I still stick to my guns and say that the Sciences are more effectively taught discreetly - even if that means only one hour a week for each. Cross-curricular links are very important but sometimes I begin to think that if I wanted to teach so many different subjects/topics, I would have trained to be a Primary teacher. But teaching should not be about what the teacher wants.
Has there been any recent research into what our Stakeholders (the children) think about this? It is their education after all.
Hope to see you both at SLF 09
Perhaps the French/Physics gap is too wide but what about Maths/Physics? Clearly there is a big overlap here, so should Maths teachers be teaching general Science or a Biology teacher have a go at first year Maths? For my part, I could argue that Computing is a Science so could I teach Chemistry up to S2? How far apart do subjects have to be before you see it as an “issue”?
You say: “I bring other qualities instead. For example, I find that as I’m learning the subject a little too, I have a bit more enthusiasm when I come across something new. By being honest with the pupils, I think this also demonstrates that us teachers do not “know everything” and aren’t there to simply impart knowledge, but help guide learning.” By that argument any teacher could teach any subject (which I think is technically the case in Scotland) but from your French objection, you don’t seem to believe that is possible or desirable.
I think the real issue that CfE inter-disciplinary activities will make us face is to define exactly what is at the heart our subjects, to consider what unique contributions each subject can bring to the table and to explore how each can support and encourage learning in other areas?
I think part of the issue here is the sense of self-perception we each have. I see myself as a teacher of science (biology). In other words, first and foremost I’m a teacher. The subject I’m qualified to teach is science, with a particular focus on biology. By science I include physics, chemistry and biology. I accept that perhaps this isn’t necessarily universal across the profession. I’m surprised that I might well be in the minority actually. Is it a product of training in England where Key Stage 3 science is very well embedded now?
So for me, there isn’t a big conflict here. I don’t think that because I teach an S1 science which includes physics and chemistry that a computing teacher can teach chemistry or that I can teach french.
We, in tech, have integrated what can be and left discrete aspects of our 3-4 subjects. Science is not the only dept. in schools to have this dilemma/quagmire.
You could walk into any tech dpet. in scotland and imediatley see the ‘fav’ subjects a tech dept teaches. Unfortuantely Tech Studs is rarely done in schools now, we have lost it for S3 this year, but ACfE has many TS outcomes !
Product Design is a Higher that is much lower in pass rates than other Tech Dept highers, possibly due to many tech teachers not actually understanding Design and Synthesis.
So can the 5 caps. and themes, such as Sustainability, not allow better integration of science ?
Nick
Reading Dylan Wiliam on Teacher Learning Communities I found a quote which seems relevant to this discussion:
“It appears that the most important difference between the most and least effective classrooms is the teacher, but the most important variable appears to be what they do, rather than what they know.”
Since neither ‘discreet’ nor ‘discrete’ have been well used here, it is clear that the teachers involved should avoid teaching Higher English!
Joking apart, it is a self-evident truth that what distinguishes a good teacher from an ordinary one is the ability to engage with their pupils. At S1/S2, the subject matter of the three traditional sciences is well within the grasp of any honours science graduate, and it beggars belief that anyone who cares about ‘outcomes’ would argue that at this level the differences between the scientific disciplines are more important than the key methods and skills that the study of ‘joined-up’ science engenders. If you think the maths teachers are getting off too lightly, perhaps they should be given the task of covering sex education. After all, probability and statistics are far more relevant to this topic than biology is, surely?
If Curriculum for Excellence is a mere tinkering, than it doesn’t matter if it is left to teachers and educationalists (that horrible word). But if it foreshadows real change, then the debate is too important to leave to the professionals, since (another self-evident truth) a successful society is founded on a successful education system.