Science education goes pop

LONDON — UK architects of a new schools science curriculum have angrily defended themselves against charges of "dumbing down". The pilot curriculum for 14 to16-year olds taking GCSE exams, which is being dubbed "pop science" by its opponents, is due to be unveiled later next month and tested in 50 schools from September. It could be the standard for all schools under the national curriculum in two years' time. If so, out will go traditional learning in physics, chemistry and biology. In will come a new curriculum hooked to more socially relevant or controversial topics such as food and diet, cloning, GM crops and the origins of the universe. The trials of the new courses, developed by John Holman, chemistry professor at the University of York, come at a happy time for the government. Though under development for almost three years, they will be widely seen as an unexpected fast response to a coruscating attack on existing GCSE science courses from the House of Commons select committee on science and technology. Last July, the committee, choosing unusually harsh language, spoke of a "boring and pointless" science curriculum, in which teaching is "based on rote learning of facts that will be of little use to most students, fails to inspire, discourages students from thinking for themselves, neglects contemporary science and has made practical work into a tedious and dull activity". Committee chairman, Ian Gibson MP, says: "Science should be the most exciting subject on the curriculum; scientific controversies and breakthroughs hit the headlines every day. But school science can be so boring it puts young people off for life." His words are unlikely to be lost on the new education secretary Charles Clarke. The two Labour MPs have neighboring Norwich constituencies and share a web site. Holman's new approach is to stop trying to turn hundreds of thousands of young teenagers into proto-scientists and instead to concentrate on equipping them as consumers of science. "We want to enhance scientific literacy for people to make sense of the world: when they read the papers or go to the doctors or the supermarket," says Holman. The course web site sums it up this way: "Most people are unlikely ever to be producers of new scientific knowledge. But all of us, as citizens, need to be informed users and consumers of scientific knowledge." The idea is that this "pop science" will form the compulsory scientific element in the core school curriculum for GCSE students, occupying a tenth of their time. This course "is for all students, whatever their aspirations," says Holman. "We do not want them to get bogged down in too much detail. We will avoid introducing so much complexity that many simply switch off." He has, he says, boiled the course down to 16 key principles of science — things like the gene theory of inheritance, radioactivity, chemical change and natural selection — plus some broad areas like how scientists use and appraise data. But these key principles will be taught in nine modules that relate them to contemporary issues such as air quality, the earth in the universe and food, which would discuss things like GM foods. Holman calls this core course "the innovative bit" of the new science syllabus for young teens. But students who intend to carry on with science beyond the age of 16, either academically or through vocational training, will be offered one of two extra courses, which will deliver a second science GCSE. "These will give more emphasis to fundamental ideas in science, and will provide a more stimulating bridge to advanced study than current double science courses," says Holman. The course for future A-Level students will contain modules covering topics — many never covered before at GCSE level — such as homeostasis, the brain, and chemicals in the natural environment. The vocationally-oriented course will tackle themes like managing the environment, communications and "harnessing chemistry". One question yet to be resolved is how the courses will be assessed. Holman runs the University of York's Science Education Group, which specializes in developing what it calls "context-led" approaches to teaching, particularly in chemistry, where it is known worldwide for its Salters Advanced Chemistry course. The Campaign for Real Education, which promotes traditional educational values, last week attacked the changes as a further "politicisation" of education. "Everybody needs a good grounding in basic science. Young people do not need to spend more time in debating topical issues," said its chairman Nick Seaton. But Holman rejected the charges. The hooks to daily life are just that, he says. They are not the meat of the courses, just the means to get students to understand their relevance. He is not introducing social science through the back door. "Actually we are more worried about being too challenging than dumbing down," he says. "The core course of chemical change for instance is quite tough. They won't just be learning how may electrons go round a sodium atom; they will be understanding what is fundamentally going on in chemical change. We want them to have a better understanding of a smaller number of things."

Science education goes pop

The Scientist ARCHIVES

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Fred Pearce

Related Research Resources

Bunsen Burners and Bad Hair Days

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Taking the Guesswork Out of Quality Control Standards

PFAS: The Forever Chemicals

Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

Comparing Analytical Solutions for High-Throughput Drug Discovery

Products

Product News

Thermo Scientific™ Centrifuges with GreenCool Technology

Singleron Biotechnologies and Hamilton Bonaduz AG Announce the Launch of Tensor to Advance Single Cell Sequencing Automation

Zymo Research Launches Research Grant to Empower Mapping the RNome

Cytosurge Appoints Magid Haddouchi as Chief Commercial Officer