New UK Initiative - Make Science Easier

An anonymous reader writes "Examiners in the UK have been told to make science 'easier'. From next year 70% of the paper must consist of 'low demand' questions in the form of multiple choice or similar answers. Currently this type of question makes up some 55% of the test. When the recent A level results were announced, with even more students in the UK getting A grades than ever before, educators were congratulating themselves on improved teaching. 'Jim Sinclair, the Joint Council for Qualifications director, emphatically denied that the changes would lead to a rise in the number achieving grade C - the top grade in the foundation tier. Future results would depend on how the marks were allocated. Dr Sinclair added that the changes would help to stop children being turned off by science.' Even still, it's hard to see the benefit from future science students passing by guessing."

Comments

Euclid said it best...

[FlyByPC]

"There is no royal road to geometry." (Or science.)

Dumb science down, and you get dumb scientists. What we need is a way to make it more interesting -- and show students how, for example, conducting an experiment or programming a simulation on a computer can be fun. Once they're interested -- and the mathematics involved have a clear purpose rather than being just rote memorization of arcane formulae -- Science suddenly becomes something they *want* to do.

There may be no "royal road" to science -- but there's nothing saying that we can't make the trip more enjoyable, and encourage more travelers at the same time.

As a side benefit, science is a great way to teach critical thinking (which IMHO is the whole point of education).

Back on topic.

[Corwn of Amber]

Hey, science is easy. Dead easy. The problem is that science is taught as a religion. "Remember things" is all we've ever asked to do. In the eight years it took me to get out of Secondary School Hell, I've never been given the occasion to actually TEST by the Scientific Method any idea I've had. There were answers to all my questions already, but I just might have remembered SOMEthing if I'd discovered it myself!

But teaching Science in that way would make kids learn that there are effects and causes to everything, and maybe even that they can all be discovered and modelled. That is very near critical thinking, thus dangerous. Not going to happen at this point in this world. Maybe later, but I'm not counting on that...

The news is about "The UK is going to lower its requirements regarding what science facts kids have to know before they can get unemployed." Big deal.

Re:Everest or a word-search, take your pick!

[DrLudicrous]

I am convinced that the way to get people in to science is to get down to brass-tax much earlier on; get down to the real physics of what's going on. In my opinion, there is no reason that the bright kids could not be walked through a solution to the Schrodinger Equation's solution for the Hydrogen atom energy levels at sixteen. There is no reason you can't teach them basic calculus either. There's no reason why you can't walk them through how to derive the equations for circular motion.

I disagree with you on this particular point. Yes it is true that you don't want to water things down. But if you are serious about advocating these particular examples, I believe that you are wrong. I know this because, A. I have solved the hydrogen atom starting from the Schrodinger equation, and B. because I have taught high school science in the US, specifically physics, to 15 and 16 year old children of all kinds of ability levels.

The fact of the matter is that while that may have been OK for you to have studied at the age, it most certainly is NOT for the overwhelming majority of students, by which I mean 99.9%. That is a literal number, not figurative. I myself would have been unable to understand the quantum mechanical derivation of the Bohr model of the atom at the age of 16, even if someone had carefully explained it to me. There is just no way to do that and impart deep understanding of both the process and the end result. You are better off just presenting the solution, because that at least is something that students can understand. 16 year olds (again, 99.9% of them) are not going to understand calculus (did I mention it is multivariable vector calculus in 3 dimensions?), let alone partial differential equations (e.g. Schrodinger) and spherical harmonics, all of which are needed to understand the "walkthrough".

Basically what I am saying is that it is unrealistic to expect even a minority of students to understand such high level concepts that they are not taught in the United States until the sophomore and junior years of university, and even then only to a select number of students (in physics, electrical engineering, and maybe a few others). That is a good way to turn students off to science- making the barrier unnecessarily high. Sometimes, it is OK to gloss over the math, because there is nothing to be gained there. Most students, even the bright ones, are not going to be come physicists, so why subject them to something that is so specific?

Doing a derivation on something like circular motion is much more appropriate. Why? Because it is something that students can relate to (they have all experienced circular motion, centripetal force etc.), unlike quantum mechanics which is inherently non-intuitive, and the math is orders of magnitude simpler (algebra vs spherical harmonics). On that point I am in agreement. But you must be careful about how you phrase your argument and present your viewpoint because the minute you start spouting off about showing students how to derive the Bohr model of the atom from the Schrodinger equation, you are going to turn people because they don't even know what the Schrodinger equation is. We don't want to dumb down science, but at the same time it needs to be accessible to students beyond the future Stephen Hawkings of the world.