Improving and Organising my A-level teaching

My aim for A-level this year is to make sure that students are working and learning the basics right from the start.

A few years ago I had a conversation with a great teacher at the school I worked in and I told him how it was my opinion that to 'get' A-level physics students had to first know all the individual pieces of information, but that would only get you so far, an E or a D. To get a higher students have to apply their knowledge, which requires lots of practice.

So next academic year I want to make sure that I scaffold my students from the start to learn the key knowledge they need to start the journey through A-level physics. With this they can hopefully recall it quickly to be able to answer questions. I know that this will only get them so far, application and creativity are required to make the journey up through the grades, but it should help build confidence and get them working and in good habits.

Firstly key words, I have a quizlet list of key words for them to learn on the topic of materials: https://quizlet.com/_trag3 And I have made longer lists with just the words for them to do themselves https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HzzFw0lSrelUn7JWZE_8Udcv3k7sc-OXqiRIFafNUAM/edit?usp=sharing. (I will check what they have written).

Secondly checking over their class notes. I have been thinking about this since pedagoo south west, and want my students to write Cornell Notes so that they can review them by writing questions and summarising. I think the will take time to practice, but I hope using this structure will mean that it is more obvious on how to actively review notes.

I want to make sure that the homework/prep that I set is accessible and covers all the basic information they need to answer exam questions. I have made some summary knowledge question sheets for students to do. I hope to give these out when the students get to the end of the section in the specification. This means that even if they can't do the exam questions from the start (and many can't as they are not used to dealing with many pieces of information at once) they can still begin picking up pieces of information that they will need later.

I am also writing the time that I want students to spend on each homework task so that they get the idea that I want them to work for an hour after each lesson (four hours per week) and give the option for more. I hope to encourage them to organise when they will do their physics prep (and I will work with their timetables in what I set).

Again, in an effort to prompt my students to go over their work and revise it I want to set them regular tests. To do this I have been setting up quizzes in socrative that test basic knowledge like SOC #: 16472046. This would give automatic feedback and allow me to keep a record of their errors. It will also be easy to resit. I want to use scores in multiple choice quizzes that cover the basics to keep a record of who is really struggling to get to grips with the basics so that we can intervene. I have written the points at which I want to do them into my scheme of work to help me ensure I find the time and can give the students plenty of notice.

I am also using past papers to set up examination level socrative quizzes like SOC #: 16471038. This will then help give an idea as to how far the student has progressed from learning the basics to being able to answer exam questions.

There are a lot of people out there doing great work on A-level changes. Two brilliant examples are linked in the tweets below.

I'll be new to AQA A Level next year. I've written + resourced 6 lessons on Measurements/Errors. Thoughts? http://t.co/pY3ZfjB3yU #asechat

— Drew Thomson (@mrthomson) May 26, 2015

@mrthomson At first glance looks good. I've used this resource lots this year, you might find it useful http://t.co/6AXsWnH2OJ

— Miss Physics (@Miss_Physics) May 26, 2015

Their resources have loads of practice for skills that the students will need.

This site is very useful for resources for the core practicals: http://practicalalevelphysics.thomascarlpion.co.uk which I have to work on next.

Hopefully I can strike the right balance, using routines to promote working independently.

This is all done so far, so my next step is to work on the core practical requirements, ensuring that we map the skills that will be examined into the practical work we do. I also want to have mapped the mathematical requirements against the specification topics and resource the practicing of the relevant skills. Then do the same thing for the waves topic.

As an aside, I am using Trello to keep a note of the activities I am doing as part of this project. Which I am finding useful.

Pedagogical Aims for A-level

Totally stolen from Tom Sherington I have put together the list of things I am working on for A-level. 

http://headguruteacher.com/2015/05/25/teaching-better-my-pedagogical-to-do-list/

I do usually do something like this in my improvements note book for each class at the start of the year.

1. Building a bank of key words using quizlet 

In order to get to a grade E in physics students have to know all the basic definitions, there is no way around this. Last year I spent a long time laminating key word definition cards for my ELT students. This year I have done the same thing on quizlet, but really I want my students to do it for themselves. This will help me because I will be able to see their understanding in their definitions and help them practice phrasing their ideas succinctly. What I need to do is draw up the list of words I want my students to know to ensure they cover them all. 

2. More opportunities for longer answers

My students, and I can't imagine I am alone, don't feel confident approaching exam questions where there are a lot of blank lines to fill in. I need to make this part of their experience in class so they are not so nervous in approaching this type of question in an examination. What I really want for inspiration are paper 6 questions from the pre-2008 specification. But I am not sure where I can find them now. This is probably the most under developed idea for next year, at the moment I rely on past exam paper questions and development of this skill between Easter and May when they are working to complete papers, it needs to get embedded. 

3. Low stakes testing at regular intervals

I have tried to do this before with a groups of students I was trying to move from U to E and it wasn't successful as it didn't make a difference to their learning of the basic facts (they still did no work between lessons no matter how accessible I made it). However, I think that my current students would respond well to this. It will help to encourage them to learn the facts they need to be able to start to access the A-level materials and give them confidence that they are making progress. I want to test the uni structural/multi structural knowledge students need. I have made lists of closed questions for the materials topic and will do the same for waves topic during the course of this half term. Answering them will then form part of their prep. I have also created some socrative quizzes that should be 'easy' to check knowledge at certain points in the course, such as : SOC #: 16472046  It will mean I can track failing students and hopefully work with the pastoral teams to intervene early. 

4. More practice in maths basic skills, building to multi step questions

For the first time 2/3 of my physics class won't be doing A-level maths along side their physics A-level. I have discovered this year from one student that this can pose quite a confidence problem. I aim to make sure that I am explicitly considering the mathematics I am asking my students to do. Currently I am mapping the mathematics skills in the back of the specification to the units that I am teaching to ensure I teach them too. I find that students struggle with the prefixes to unit and standard form the most, and I know that I must teach calculator skills. I have bought some resources to help.

5. Hands on practical wherever possible to encourage problem solving

I know a lot of people don't like this idea, but I did read an article about how 'experts' learn by solving problems and 'novices' need to be told something. After reading this I taught an A-level physics lesson and it rang true. I want my students to ask questions and search for answers and doing practical work brings up those questions. I feel that if students ask the questions themselves they will engage more with the answer (particularly given it has a context) and will build a better understanding. They will need to think widely about a topic to answer exam questions and learning to question is part of this. I will have a group of up to a maximum of 6 students so I can manage discussions and ask questions to get students to the conclusions I want without talking at them for an hour. In the past I have not been as good as I could be at using practical work with A-level students and I want to change that. 

6. Opportunities to work with authentic data and draw conclusions

I don't know what the new exam questions will be like, but I know that they should include working scientifically. When we do the core practicals I want to ensure I am taking more care than I have previously on making the most of the practical activities to ensure students understand how to process data and evaluate it. 

7. Develop lab book skills

I want to create a course book and have the students use it to keep a record of their core practicals. I will be relying on Alex Weatherall to lead the way here! The shape of what I want to make is still in development and very much in note form in my note book. 

8. Increase context by reading around subjects

I want to copy the idea of Sarah Pannell and develop a journal club for the science post-16 students (and perhaps some Year 11s who are keen). I also have students who have ambition to apply to some very high caliber universities. I want to make sure I am helping them in their applications by giving them a helping hand in learning beyond the specification. More than that though, physics exam questions have contexts to them, and learning more about the context of physics should help to expand the vocabulary of EAL students and practice thinking about physics in different situations for the others. The Salters Horners course does help to do this, but I would like to go further. 

9. Using prep to instil good study skills from the start of the course

The amount of work you do for a single subject at A-level is a big increase (four times) than what you would do at GCSE. In some cases turning up to your GCSE lessons is sufficient to pass a GCSE. It isn't enough at A-level. I need to get my students into the habit of working 3-4 hours per week on their A-level physics work, but it isn't easy at the start. I still haven't got this right yet. Students struggle with the questions because the amount of knowledge we expect them to use to answer an A-level question is far beyond that at GCSE. For example, changing the unit they are using, understanding standard form, rearranging a formula, knowing what letters mean, remembering a formula, understanding the context of the question (is it under compression or tension) etc etc. I need to consider the develop of my students from the demands of GCSE to the expectations of an A-level student. 

10. Use video to help give clear explanations

I want to try and expand the number of videos I have made for the students. So far I have only made resources for GCSE, but I would like to support any A-level students who need to refresh their know of a skill or key idea by being able to watch a video of me. I find this an excellent way of explaining things clearly as I can have numerous goes until I am satisfied the explanation is clear and uses key language appropriately. Hopefully I can encourage the students to do this too using showme to explain how they are doing calculations so I can see their thought processes, which will be useful assessment. 

I will try to follow up with the sum of my preparations during July.

We can't Consider Practical Work Issues in Isolation

I once saw Tim Oates speak about assessment in school science. I didn't understand much of that lecture, but I could tell that practical assessment as part of the grading for GCSEs and A-levels was about to vanish.

This is not what I want to talk about, however. One thing that he did say was that in an ideal world we would build the curriculum and then workout how to assess it. This was not happening at the moment as arbitrary restrictions like the percentage of a course that can be internally assessed and moderated are dictating the assessment.

This idea keeps coming back to me.

What would really good science teaching that includes practical work look like? If we start from there then maybe we can get an assessment system that works for us?

Firstly I think that we do need to ensure students have a wide variety of different practical experiences using the widest possible variety of equipment. I say this a lot, but we need to ensure that the taught curriculum provides genuine opportunity for this. The reason I don't do much practical at the moment is that there isn't much point in doing it with the topics I teach. What topics can students study where their engagement with practical equipment will help their understanding of concepts?

Secondly I think we need to ensure students have the opportunity to investigate a scientific hypothesis in such a way that they have to manipulate and evaluate genuine data.

I really hate the controlled assessment in OCR gateway, but I also really like them at the same time. What I hate is that students are not allowed to redraft. I am not allowed to discuss and draw out ideas about the data. I can't use it to help students learn or carefully consider the implications and issues around what they have done. What I hate is that they are so time consuming and high pressure. It takes half a term to complete and the curriculum simply doesn't allow time for that. What I like is the imaginative contexts they give and that some experiments give very different results per group. I like that there is a degree of freedom for the students and that in part comes because I am not allowed to guide them directly. I can only give generic, non-specific advice.

This second part is going to be really missing from the new courses at both key stage 4 and 5.

How do we build an assessment system that allows for both types of practical work?

I don't think we can at the moment. With high stakes testing, ofsted 'outstanding' to aim for and budget cuts, the type of chaotic lessons that would be involved in allowing students to do their own investigations, the curriculum time that would be necessary for it (detracting from drilling for tests - now dressed up as 'deliberate practice') and the cost of having good technicians and plenty of working equipment means that only very few schools would be able to really enter into the spirit of practical and investigative work. In which case it becomes a burden and practical work is contrived to suit the local circumstances and we need to consider that too. Particularly with science teachers are in short demand.

For me the new proposals mean I get rid of a large bureaucratic burden that is controlled assessment.

I can only conclude that the whole system needs a shake up and looking at practical work in isolation is simply not enough.

Working Scientifically - Proposed 2015 National Curriculum for Science

I have been using APP a lot in my key stage 3 science lessons in the last few years.

I like the balance between scientific ideas, communicating in science, seeing how science ideas have changed, experimenting in science and writing conclusions using evidence. These are the things that I would like to see in the new science curriculum, and I think we get it.

I am not sure that I like the point "intrinsic nature" of variables, surely there name implies their nature? I wonder what is meant by "other factors", probably repeats and range of the variables. I don't like the use of the word reliability as it is part of the language of measurement that we have been struggling with. 

I am pleased with the inclusion of the word field work, it implies that the government supports this. 

I don't disagree with any of the statements in this section. Although I wonder if the sections could be better divided as it does overlap with the experimental skills and investigation section. Although I can see a rationale in making them separate as not every practical I carry out to find evidence to draw a conclusion during a lesson would be an investigation. (In fact not many are).

I think this section is about preparing for students to deal with science reporting in the media. A topic that I think is very important. However, I am not sure that "scientific attitudes" is the best subtitle for this.

I like the idea of having "measurement" as a specific topic within the working scientifically area as measuring things is pretty important to science, but I am not entirely sure that using equations and manipulating them comes under measurement or maybe more "collecting data"?

Again, the 2015 is more closely linked to the 1999 curriculum, but there is less detail. I actually think this is a step in the right direction, I don't think that the descriptions in the 2008 curriculum really put enough emphasis on carrying out investigations critically and what this involved. I say this because I think that working scientifically, the investigations and critical analysis of evidence, is the most important aspect of science in the school curriculum.

Here is Alessio's mind map of the working scientifically aspect of the new national curriculum.

Taken from 

http://alessiobernardelli.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/mapping-the-science-curriculum-working-scientifically/

Comparing the Aims of the Science National Curriculum

I think that it is right that there is a rationale for each subject as part of the national curriculum. Why are some subjects valued more than others, what makes them important?

I have written elsewhere that in the first years of my career I didn't know why I taught science other than it was a subject that interested me. But I am now convinced of the importance of science as a compulsory part of the national curriculum until 16 years old.

In the 1999 curriculum and 2008 curriculum "the importance of science" was described. When reading them they same to be along the same lines. In the 2015 proposed study there is a slightly different tone. 

1999

2008

2015

Using Wordle is often a good way to look at the language used. I think that the size of the word "knowledge" does show the the commitment of the current government to make a knowledge based curriculum first. However, there is acknowledgement that students should explain phenomena using scientific idea (knowledge in their words), and curiosity and excitement around science is stated. 

I think that this purpose does allow us to teach the type of science education that I would like to see. 

"Science has changed our lives and is vital to the world’s future prosperity, and all pupils should be taught essential aspects of the knowledge, methods, processes and uses of science. "

To me this sentence allows us to continue to teach "how science works" how discoveries are made and start to look at what is meant by "the scientific method".

1999

2008

2015

The 1999 curriculum did not have succinct aims. 

2008

2015

These are interesting and contrasting aims. I see the 2008 aims as more general aims for the whole curriculum and the 2015 specific to science.

The statement I like the least is "through the specific disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics". It makes me imagine that students would not have "science" lessons, but separate lessons. Personally I think that would be a mistake. There are overlaps between the areas and a lot of other sections of science that could be included if science were considered as a whole. Looking at the ways that areas of science overlap is particularly important to reach the final aim.

Using the term STEM brings all four fields together in illustrating the interdependence, I think that splitting science would cause a small level of conflict when trying to promote STEM as a concept to young people. 

Energy in the 2015 National Curriculum

If you are thinking about responding to the proposed change to the national curriculum, I can give you a good reason to do it: the energy section of the physics key stage 3 curriculum is far more confusing than it needs to be.

The energy section of the 2015 proposed national curriculum looks like:

In the 1999 national curriculum energy looks like this:

 

In 2008 the national curriculum was condensed (a lot)

I think that the "changes and transfers" section from the 2015 curriculum means the same as the 3.1a statements from the 2008 curriculum. And that the long description is there because the person/people who wrote it want the students to experience the changes first hand? 

The next section about energy and fuel seems to suggest activities, but the word "calculations" makes me wonder what the person who wrote this was thinking. Already in the biology section students are expected to carry out calculations to work out a daily diet, is this another example of duplication, like in the case of particles between chemistry and physics? And for electrical appliances, does this statement imply that we have to calculate electricity bills like many GCSEs specifications might expect?

I am also not happy with the idea of introducing the kW. Particularly when power is not mentioned in the curriculum. I am aware the Year 9 QCA unit on energy and electricity had a lesson that involved power. I didn't teach it to many classes as they needed more time on the things that were in the national curriculum. So I would suspect that teaching energy is enough for key stage 3.

I do think that if the idea was to increase the difficulty then efficiency would have been a better concept to chose to make more explicit in the national curriculum than sliding power in to it.

The "auditing change" section is also confusing. I assume that it doesn't mean students should use E=1/2kx^2 or E=mcT etc, but that students should use the principle of conservation of energy qualitatively.

It is a big pity that energy resources are missing from the 2015 national curriculum at key stage 3. There is a sentence in the key stage 4 curriculum: "national and global fuel resources, renewable energy sources". I think that this is too big a topic to go into cold, students will have to have heard of the difference energy resources in order to be able to analyse them in a national context.

The 2015 key stage 3 energy statements have to be taken into context with the key stage 4 statements on energy. I don't think that the key stage 4 statements represent much of a change, except adding electrical energy = voltage x charge (but I introduce the ground work for this in year 9 energy and electricity unit, so it wouldn't be a big leap). And of course the conceptual idea that energy transfers tend to reduce the difference that caused them to reach equilibrium.

It is interesting that thermal insulation is mentioned in the key stage 4 2015 curriculum, but heat transfer is not mentioned explicitly in either. I like teaching conduction and convection as it gives a context for the particle model. I can hear the students saying "why do I need to learn this?" about conduction and convection, so perhaps it isn't such a terrible thing to lose, but I would rather it was in either key stage 3 or 4. (Although infra-red radiation is mentioned in the waves section of the curriculum).

Energy is fundamental to the understanding of physics and is one of the most important things to get right. I think that the DfE does need to look again at this section of the curriculum even if it changes nothing else.

Proposed Changes to the National Curriculum 3: KS3 Physics

I have certainly saved the worse to last. Physics is my subject and having read the proposed national curriculum document I am wondering if I do understand physics as well as I thought that I did. Is it just me?

This is the offending section:

I think that I will come back to it!

Aspects that are no longer part of the national curriculum are: the concept of weight (vs mass), the magnetic field of a solenoid, effects of loud sounds on the ear, and the majority of the aspects of the space topic. The also major omission is the topic of energy resources providing the energy we need as well as conduction, convection, evaporation and radiation (unless they are part of the auditing change section as I don't see what that is getting at).

Concepts that have been added to the 2015 national curriculum are: resistance, V=IR, static electricity, D.C motors, work done, Hooke's Law, relative motion, atmospheric pressure, convex lenses, water waves and superposition, water's density 'anomaly' during freezing, sublimation, brownian motion, and some aspects of the energy topics that I have not yet investigated fully.

Physics

ELECTRICITY

Electricity has to be my favourite part of physics. I don't think that there is much of a change between the 1999 curriculum and what is proposed for 2015, except that "resistance" has been included, and V=IR. Personally I have been happy teaching electrical circuits without using the mathematical definition of resistance, however I can see Key stage 3 students being able to do simple calculations of resistance using measurements from voltage and current. I would need to add this to my schemes of work.

The other addition is the mention of the domestic main ring. I don't think that it is a bad thing for students to be taught wiring in their own homes as a context for understanding electrical circuits.

STATIC ELECTRICITY

This is new. Static electricity used to be in the national curriculum at key stage 3, before I started teaching and it was taken out. I do not see how students are not expected to know about the atom in chemistry, yet are expected to know about positive and negative charges along with the electron in physics. I would agree with the addition of static electricity as a type of force, but not involving electrons and certainly not bringing in the A2 level concept of electric fields. Lets stick to magnetic fields that are tangible as you can see them using a plotting compass or iron filings.

MAGNETISM

Here is where we see the influence of including practical techniques. I don't see much difference between the 8J unit we teach now. However, I do question the inclusion of the D.C motor. Are students expected to understand how it works? I will add to this that the DC motor is not included in the  key stage 4 curriculum. Surely the bell or circuit breaker would be better, as we have currently?


FORCES

You can't change Newton's laws of motion so you can't change what needs to be taught about forces. Distance-Time graphs are generally taught as part of 9K Speeding Up anyway so their explicit inclusion won't affect things too much.

What I am not keen on is the constant references to springs. Hooke's Law is taught in year 7, but not the significance of it. I use the lesson to teach about graphs and drawing a line of best fit.

It is interesting that the mass vs weight concept is not present in the proposed national curriculum.

I remember studying "work done" in year 9 (1993) and not understanding the point of it at all. To be honest the point of "work done" didn't make sense to me until I studied As Mechanics and learned about integration. I don't see how understanding the concept of work really helps young people become scientifically literate.

PRESSURE

Again, I don't see a great deal of difference here. I have never taught atmospheric pressure, but it is a good context to teach about pressure.

LIGHT

I think that the newer version of the curriculum is just a poorly explained version of the 1999 curriculum. The main addition I can see is the inclusion of the concept of the convex lens. I have seen this in key stage 3 books as an application of refraction, so it isn't a major departure from what we do now. Understanding how a convex lens works does involve some tricky thinking and a good understanding of refraction, so allows those few students who will get it to be extended.

SOUND

I have never really concentrated on teaching the effects of loud sounds on hearing, so I am not upset to see it not included in the proposed curriculum. It is interested that the microphone is included explicitly, I think that this is a good idea as we are using microphones more and more via our personal mobile phones etc.

I didn't know that ultrasound was used in physiotherapy. But I don't see the issue in teaching sound waves as carrying energy and there are applications other than hearing.


WAVES

This is new, I am not sure that I like the inclusion of superposition. I can easily demonstrate it in the ripple tank, but the idea that waves overlap, change and then emerge unchanged is quite an abstact one and I think best left for key stage 4. I can see why it has been included as interference is a property that is specific to waves and seeing it in water waves before going on to study it at key stage 4 in radio waves might help to give a concrete base to the abstract learning.


SPACE

There are two mentions of space in the proposed 2015 key stage 3 national curriculum, one about the relative motion of the sun, moon and Earth, and one about gravity. I think that students will be upset to see space in its own right removed from the national curriculum. Although schools have taught key stage 3 through the context of space, so teachers don't need to throw out space completely.

I think that it is really disappointing that the people writing the curriculum did not see the value in space. Have they not heard of the Brian Cox effect?

MATTER

I have it on good authority that those writing the chemistry section of the 2015 national curriculum and those writing the physics section did not have the opportunity to communicate. This section proves this. It is ridiculous that science hasn't been treated as "science" at key stage 3. For example: in order to understand chemistry, one has to have a grasp of the concept of energy and to grasp ideas such as photosynthesis and respiration an idea of chemical reactions as the rearrangements of atoms is necessary.

It is interesting that density, conservation of mass, brownian motion and the difference between chemical and physical changes are explicitly mentioned, where they are not in the chemistry curriculum.

I am not happy with the inclusion of the term "internal energy". I haven't use the term since I studied A-levels myself and it wasn't clear what it was then either! Lets be explicit about what is meant in the context, does it mean the energy which gives rise to the temperature of the matter?

ENERGY

I think that I need a full blog post on this topic. To be honest I haven't got a clue what the meaning of most of the statements in the proposed national curriculum means. I would be grateful if anyone who could explain the format would leave a comment on this post.

I think that of all three sciences physics has come out worst.

Proposed Changes to the National Curriculum 2: chemistry

My previous post looked at the key stage 3 biology section of the proposed national curriculum from 2015. In this one look at the chemistry section of the key stage 3 curriculum. Again I compare it to the 1999 national curriculum as this is the one that we use in my school because we follow the QCA units.

The images with orange headings are from the 1999 curriculum and the blue headings are from the 2015 proposed curriculum.

I have found the chemistry national curriculum a lot harder to compare directly from 1999 to 2015.

The main omissions are the sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks, the concept of conservation of mass during chemical and physical changes, the relationship between temperature and solubility, carbonates also seem to be missing.

The additions include studying the atmosphere, and "ceramics, polymers and composites" (for such a little sentence this opens up a vast section of chemistry), endothermic and exothermic reactions and using carbon to extract metals from their oxides.

Currently I have to decide if we should change the earth science units taught in year 8 and perhaps move the 9G and H units in order that we can fill in the areas that the students will have missed on polymers and ceramics. I will look at the key stage 4 curriculum before deciding.

Please do comment if you see something that I have overlooked.

Chemistry

SOLIDS, LIQUIDS AND GASES (PARTICLES)

The first statement in the 1999 KS3 chemistry section talks about classification of materials and interestingly as classification has gone from biology it also seems to be missing from chemistry too. 

I wonder if using the melting and boiling points to work out the state of a material would still be expected even though it is no longer explicit, (see below) we still have to teach the physical properties of the elements. 

There are glimpses if you look at the "periodic table" section of the 2015 national curriculum.

However, in the new national curriculum only the properties of the elements are considered and not materials in general. And the last statement about "with respect to acidity" does that mean how they react with acid, their pH, or both?

The particle theory seems to be very similar, the energy changes involved in state changes was present in the 1999 national curriculum. And we do already teach that the particles move/vibrate according to their state. 

ATOMS, ELEMENTS, COMPOUNDS AND MIXTURES

The mixtures aspect of the proposed 2015 national curriculum seems similar to the 1999 national curriculum. And it is the first time that experimental techniques are mentioned in the chemistry section. I don't disagree with the idea of defining what a pure substance is - I teach this as part of 7H, so including it explicitly won't cause an issue. What is missing is the relationship between solubility and temperature and the emphasis on understanding solutions, as well as the conservation of mass.

EARTH SCIENCE

The change to the Earth Science section of the key stage 3 national curriculum seems to be the greatest. I like teaching 8G&H. 

However I am pleased to see global warming and the atmosphere being addressed at key stage 3, as well as recycling. 

CHEMICAL REACTIONS

 

It is interesting to see that the statement about conservation of mass in a chemical or physical reaction is not present in the proposed 2015 national curriculum. It is an abstract idea, but something I like to cover as it is part the story of how oxygen was discovered. 

Rather than give a general statement about how chemical reactions are useful in everyday life, the proposed curriculum lists those chemical reactions. I can't think of where thermal decomposition occurs in the QCA units, but the other types of chemical reaction we have to teach will not mean a big change. 

EXOTHERMIC AND ENDOTHERMIC REACTIONS

This is new to key stage 3 national curriculum, but I believe that it is a part of the "using chemical reactions" QCA unit, so again does not represent a big change.

METALS AND MATERIALS

 

I think that the main change is including the idea of using carbon to extract metals from their ores. This is interesting when rocks have not been studied as part of the 2015 national curriculum, but perhaps this gives the potential to add the usefulness of rocks as a raw material. 

ACIDS AND BASES

I don't think that the proposed 2015 national curriculum presents much of a change to the reactions of acids. Although the last statement needs to be corrected to show that when acids react with metals a salt an hydrogen (not water) is formed.