Ramblings on what to do in Year 9 if you do a three year KS4.

I was asked by Greg Seal what I was doing with my students in Year 9. He told me "and don't say segue". Of course my answer was 'Segue'. It is well known that it is by far and away my favourite scheme of work. 

Both Greg's department and mine use the OUP scheme at key stage 3, Activate. They have a Year 9 course that might be suitable, but it is expensive to buy for only one year of use. 

When I went to the ASE conference in January Mary Whitehouse gave some advice on what to do if schools were starting a there year key stage 4 when there wasn't going to be much out their to support it from September. She said that there was a lot of overlap between key stage 3 and 4, and when thinking about where to start with GCSE start there. 

I have been thinking about this. I wondered what makes SEGUE so good, and I think it is because the writers have thought about which areas of GCSE lend themselves to deep understanding via their philosophy. I love teaching the key stage 4 concepts in such a way that I am concerned about the understanding of the students and not concerned about the mark scheme. 

With this in mind I wanted to look at where key stage 3 and 4 overlap as a starting point and then think about where to go with those topics. It is important to realise that the exam boards don't get to add their own personal touches in the new GCSEs, so you can work from the national curriculum and be happy you are considering all the aspects students will be examined on. 

Thinking about it now, I actually can see an advantage of doing a two year scheme of work for key  stage 3. There is a great deal of cross over, why not hold that cross over and teach it in key stage 4? Having a longer time at key stage 4 could mean the fundamental ideas are covered and learned more securely. 

An interesting aspect to the key stage 4 curriculum document is that each subject area has a summary of the key ideas as an introduction. One idea might be to look at that and ensure that these background ideas are at the heart of what you teach in Year 9 bridging between key stage 3 and 4. 

The key stage 3 biology curriculum is split into the following sections:

Structure and Function of Living Organisms

• Cells and organisation 
• The skeletal and muscular systems 
• Nutrition and digestion 
• Gas exchange systems 
• Reproduction Health

Material cycles and energy 

• Photosynthesis
• Cellular respiration

Interactions and interdependencies

• Relationships in an ecosystem

Genetics and evolution

• Inheritance, chromosomes, DNA and genes

And key stage 4:

• Cell biology 
• Transport systems 
• Health, disease and the development of medicines 
• Coordination and control 
• Photosynthesis 
• Ecosystems 
• Evolution, inheritance and variation

With this in mind, it might be useful to use Year 9 to review cells, inheritance and ecosystems within biology? I would guess that the chapters in Biology for You would be a good place to start in devising a scheme of work! Or of course, you could start with the areas that are not in key stage 3...

In Chemistry at key stage three the topics are split under the following headings.

• The particulate nature of matter
• Atoms, elements and compounds
• Pure and impure substances
• Chemical reactions 
• Energetics
• The Periodic Table
• Materials Earth and atmosphere

The headings at key stage 4 chemistry are:

• Atomic structure and the Periodic Table 
• Structure, bonding and the properties of matter 
• Chemical changes 
• Energy changes in chemistry 
• Rate and extent of chemical change 
• Chemical analysis 
• Chemical and allied industries 
• Earth and atmospheric science

Chemical Analysis and Pure and Impure Substances have overlap, Chemical Changes and Atomic Structure and the Periodic Table also has overlap with key stage 3. Climate change overlaps in the Earth Science sections of chemistry also. And energetics overlap, understanding end/exothermic reactions will help when students move onto relating this to bonds. But despite all this I think the most important aspect of Year 9 is helping students to get the idea of atoms and how the rearrange without vanishing/appearing to create a balanced equation and what this means. 

Physics at key stage 3 contains:

Energy

• Calculation of fuel uses and costs in the domestic context
• Energy changes and transfers
• Changes in systems

Motion and forces 

• Describing motion
• Forces
• Pressure in fluids
• Balanced forces
• Forces and motion

Waves

• Observed waves
• Sound waves
• Energy and waves
• Light waves

Electricity and electromagnetism 

• Current electricity 
• Static electricity 
• Magnetism 

Matter

• Physical changes 
• Particle model 
• Energy in matter 

Space physics

At key stage 4

• Energy 
• Forces 
• Forces and motion 
• Wave motion 
• Electricity 
• Magnetism and electromagnetism 
• The structure of matter 
• Atomic structure 
• Space physics

The first thing I would say is that space physics, for a reason I cannot understand, does not involve the big bang or the life cycle of stars. So this might be something to include in Year 9 if you feel you can afford the time. Red shift overlaps nicely with waves so that would give a recap.

Quite a lot of the physics curriculum seems to overlap to be honest. I would use the time to ensure that students have the fundamentals of forces, matter and electricity (because it is my favourite).

Probably more important than the content is the aspects of working scientifically. A lot of these will not be easy to pick up from a revision guide and not necessarily relate well to the topics being studied at GCSE.

If I am honest, this part of the national curriculum does seem to develop from key stage 3 to 4. I might be inclined to look only to the key stage 4 version and work on helping my students work directly towards that. Selecting topics that allow students to appreciate how ideas change over time, that allow analysis of data, that lead into students planning their own lessons, that involve calculations and drawing conclusions would be very useful. Health and fitness is a useful topic for that in biology, electricity in physics and rates in chemistry.

The headings in key stage 3 are:
Scientific attitudes 
Experimental skills and investigations 
Analysis and evaluation 
Measurement

And at key stage 4 are:
1. The development of scientific thinking 
2. Experimental skills and strategies 
3. Analysis and evaluation 
4. Vocabulary, units, symbols and nomenclature

The Changes to Physics NC 1999 to 2014

Electricity and Magnetism 

I think that the new national curriculum does show an increased ambition for students. 

There is specific reference to potential difference and resistance as well as V=IR in the new curriculum. However, I imagine that most schools are similar to the ones I have worked in and teach potential difference as part of key stage 3, and the concept of resistance as something that opposes the current flowing. The extra activity will involve the students calculating resistance. We have fixed resistors with small values, that will be useful for this type of activity. 

Static electricity is new, but I don't think that this will take a lot of time to teach. Students are familiar with static electricity and the national curriculum doesn't expect them to understand earthing as a concept. If students have studied magnetism previously then the idea of 'opposites attract' should sit comfortably. They may also be aware of electrons as a concept from current electricity, if this has been introduced. 

Magnetism has been increased to include compasses, but these are usually part of schemes anyway, so won't be a departure. Including the motor as an application of electromagnetism is a bit different and will require adaptation of resources, but I don't believe that it will require more of a challenge than teaching the door bell or speaker. 

Forces and Motion

Looking at each section in turn, using the speed = distance / time equation isn't new, although distance-time graphs seem to be, they are currently taught at key stage 3. The new section seems to be relative motion. 

In the forces section, there aren't many areas that are not currently taught, except perhaps work done and energy changes on deformation. I am interested to know what this should look like, and whether it should be approached in the forces topic, energy topic or both.

We already teach Hooke's Law in Year 7, but it is more about developing the ability to draw a line of best fit and interpolate from a graph than about recognising when a material obeys Hooke's Law. Air resistance is taught in Year 9. Most schemes of work I have taught have also covered the difference between contact and non-contact forces, so schools may already have resources to cover these curriculum points. 

Pressure in liquids is not explicit in the 1999 curriculum, but this is taught in schools, so again should not be a stretch to develop lessons for.

Waves

The obvious addition is the mention of waves in water. As we use water waves to teach about light, I can see that this can be added into light topics. In the QCA schemes light came before sound, but teaching sound first, then light and water and finally being able to compare the three would be useful. That water waves are light light and transverse, but also like sound in that they need a medium to travel in. 

I have never taught the pin hole camera before (although I have made and used a 'real' one in an extra curricular activity run by one of the technology teachers), it is part of some schemes however. 

The human eye is something that I have not taught at key stage 3 before. As I write this I am wondering what level of detail I will go into about how the eye works; will I mention long and short sightedness for example?

The word frequency appears in the new national curriculum. I don't usually ensure that students understand that different colours have different frequencies. I think this is because I don't usually teach light as a wave, I teach more about the properties of light and what it does. Teaching that light is a wave introduces some new questions for the learner - what is it that is vibrating? Light doesn't wiggle, it is a straight line.  

Space Physics

This is the area where information seems to have been stripped out. Satellites haven't been included. 

Although the seasons and day length were not included in 1999, but were taught in the QCA schemes, and I also think I have seen SATs questions about day length and the movement of of the sun across the sky. I note that the planets are not explicit in either curriculum. 

Energy

Energy is the bit that needs work. I am not entirely sure how I will include 'simple machines'. Physics for you will help, I hope. I am also undecided of how to approach kWh as a unit of energy. 

The issue with physics is that we need to teach transfer instead of teaching transformation. Reading work by Robin Millar is a good place to start. e.g. http://www.york.ac.uk/media/educationalstudies/documents/research/Paper11Teachingaboutenergy.pdf  and http://esummit-msu.net/users/robin-millar

Teaching food energy, energy resources, and heating and cooling is something covered in previous schemes of work. It is interesting that convection is not explicit in the new national curriculum. I think that it is something worth teaching to recap the idea of density and prepare students for GCSE, where it will be necessary to help understanding of how insulation works. 

Power is an interesting addition. I know the OUP scheme from the early 2000s covered it, so there are resources available. 

Matter

The new addition is the reference to matter. 

It will be interesting to see the ways that schools and publishers approach this. I would prefer to teach the particle model in Year 7 chemistry and then use physics contexts to revisit the ideas. In that way we will cover the concepts written in the national curriculum, without needing to add another topic that recaps the ideas already taught in chemistry. 

For example, Brownian motion will be taught in air pressure, change of state will be taught as part of the heat energy topic as well as the changes to the spacing of particles as temperature changes. Density will be taught in floating and sinking, etc etc. 

Hopefully these observations will help someone. I will try and do the same things for biology and chemistry. 

The aims of the science national curriculum (ks3)

Again I am looking at the proposed changes to the science national curriculum at key stage 3.

My previous blog post on the aims is here: http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/comparing-aims-of-science-national.html

There has been changes from the February document to the current one.

In February this paragraph was written under the title 'Purpose of Study':


The current draft is exactly the same, however it misses the last sentence.

I still don't like the first sentence of the purpose of study. I think it was wise not to call the separate sciences biology, chemistry and physics as the lines are very blurred, and I think it marginalises geology, astronomy, ecology etc as specific disciplines.

I am also left wondering about the omission of the last sentence. Is it irrelevant as we would teach lessons in the context of application anyway? Or has it be omitted because the wording isn't great: "the specific applications", which specific applications? I do think that it is important that in science lessons we are teaching students about the links between science and their lives, without this we are not preparing them for the science based decisions they may have to make.



The aims of the science curriculum have not changed at all.

In the light of the aims, my concerns about the omission of the last sentence of the purpose seem unfounded as preparing students for a scientific and technological world seem linked to the third aim of the curriculum here.

I think that I would have liked to see 'curiosity' in the aims. Students should not just answer questions, but learn to ask them too.

As key stage 3 is not assessed by an exam the aims do not need to be restricted to things that can be assess using a written exam.

I still like the aims of the 2008 PoS best:


I agree they are wooly, but they are admirable.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A session from the ASE conference, an update on the new primary national curriculum

This session was run by Brenda Naylor and Jane Turner.
Brenda began by asking what has changed.

Programme of Study:

• Re-written and rearranged


• There is an organisational change, but not a change in content


• Science enquiry has changed. - its not fair project is having and impact as enquiry has expanded beyond just fair testing


• By the end of year 6 children are asking questions, planning which type of enquiry to use, and plan and investigation. And do it for themselves.


• We shouldn't be doing science enquiry for the sake of science enquiry.

The other changes are:

• Evolution introduced


• More emphasis on outdoor learning

Brenda explained that the notes and guidance have the kinds of experiences that students might have, and gives suggestions of activities. She said that command words are included in the PoS statements.

We were told that the timeline is a bit up in the air. The NC document with score. But despite that the NC is being dis-applied from September for y3 and y4.

What hasn't changed?
The main concepts covered

Science enquiry is central to learning science



Use time to review the sow and develop science enquiry - MAIN MESSAGE

Brenda was keen to highlight the message shown by this image:

Jane Turner then went to talk about Assessment

Throughout the session Jane spoke with this image behind her:


Jane said that the Assessment and Curriculum groups are currently working in separate locations and not together. However, the people in the DfE who write the SATs do care about getting a good SATs paper out.

She told the audience that sample testing will carry on. As for the detail about assessment in the sample SATs: the DfE don't know yet. Sample tests will not be by school, a school will have students selected. There will be 9 sample tests and schools will get a variety of the 9, but one each of biology, chemistry and physics.





Brenda and Jane went on to stress that effective teaching and assessment has not changed.

When you plan a lesson consider what you want the students to learn and how you, the teacher, will know they have got it.

APP is fading away, but maybe still a useful tool without the levels attracted.
Do not throw the baby out with the bath water - we have time to implement change.



Interesting points made at the end of the session: What is more scary students being allowed to challenge their own learning, or students not knowing the content?

Different for those who believe teaching is filling the Child with knowledge.
Have you been in a situation where you and the children both do not know the answer. The new model means that we could be in that situation because students are allowed to be in that situation.

Jane Turner: practical work does not always lead to learning, practical work does not always equate to enquiry. Lesson needs to make the practical purposeful.


A great session, very reassuring and all teachers should remember that the government are not telling us how to teach. Best practice will remain best practice. Thanks to Brenda and Jane for that!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Initial thoughts: Response to National Curriculum Consultation

I am writing mainly about the key stage 3 science national curriculum, as this is the one I feel most qualified to talk about.

The responses below are not my responses to the consultation, just my thoughts and reflections.

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the proposed aims for the National Curriculum as a whole as set out in the framework document?

The aims are: 
Para 3.1 The National Curriculum provides pupils with an introduction to the core knowledge that they need to be educated citizens. It introduces pupils to the best that has been thought and said; and helps engender an appreciation of human creativity and achievement. 
Para 3.2 The National Curriculum is just one element in the education of every child. There is time and space in the school day and in each week, term and year to range beyond the National Curriculum specifications. The National Curriculum provides an outline of core knowledge around which teachers can develop exciting and stimulating lessons.

I find these aims strange, to me they aren't the aims/outcomes of the curriculum, but rather the aims of the curriculum document.

It is interesting (although not surprising) that the aims of the proposed curriculum talk about the core knowledge and do not mention skills. I would have thought that you are not only taught knowledge in maths and english and would certainly shy away from teaching a knowledge-only science curriculum.

Although I don't like the phrase "it introduces pupils to the best that has been thought and said", I don't think that you can argue with it! I think that I am not happy with the word "best", it is subjective, what makes something the best? In science I suppose that isn't such an issue as we will teach the "accepted" science, which could be interpreted as the "best".

I am not convinced by the second paragraph as I don't see it as an "aim", or at least not the way that it is phrased. It seems to be more of a "note". I would also raise the question "if the national curriculum is just one element in the education of every child", then what is the rest?

Overall, I think these aims should be better: In January I attended the ASE conference and went to a lecture by Michael Reiss who said that the aim of education should be the flourishing of students, but at the moment the curriculum starts with the subjects. See: http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/ase-conference-and-purpose-of-science.html I think it is something like this that should be the aims of the curriculum itself.

Question 2: Do you agree that instead of detailed subject-level aims we should free teachers to shape their own curriculum aims based on the content in the programmes of study?

This is an interesting question. I have addressed the aim of the curriculum in another blog post previously: http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/what-is-science-education-for.html

The aims for science education in the ASE guide to secondary education are:

1. A grasp of the "big" ideas that enable active participation in decisions involving science and technology
2. A basic understanding of what science is, how it works and what are its strengths and limitations
3. The ability to continue learning

In the proposed National Curriculum the aims for science are:

These are more about the outcomes for the students, what they will learn.

I am very interested in question 2 and its implications.

Why would the aims of the science national curriculum restrict schools form being able to set their own aims? If there were no aims in the national curriculum for science would science departments (have to) make their own?

To be honest I don't think that the aims I have identified as the ones I would use and those in the national curriculum document are terribly different.

Question 3: Do you have any comments on the content set out in the draft programmes of study? 

Mmm - yes I do.

http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/working-scientifically-proposed-2015.html (working scientifically)
http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/proposed-changes-to-national-curriculum.html (bio)
http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/proposed-changes-to-national-curriculum_7.html (chem)
http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/proposed-changes-to-national-curriculum_592.html (phys)
http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/energy-in-2015-national-curriculum.html (energy)

Question 4: Does the content set out in the draft programmes of study represent a sufficiently ambitious level of challenge for pupils at each key stage?

I think that there is enough scope in the key stage 3 science curriculum to stretch the most able. I am surprised that the atom hasn't made it into the chemistry element, but I am not sure if I am going to mention that in my feedback.

Question 5: Do you have any comments on the proposed wording of the attainment targets?

In every section of the proposed national curriculum the attainment targets are described as:

Attainment targets: By the end of each key stage, pupils are expected to know, apply and understand the matters, skills and processes specified in the relevant programme of study.

I suppose it is the target for all the students to attain. It is interesting that the attainment targets mention skills and processes, when the aims for the national curriculum don't.

I knew that the levels were going to be removed, but I do wonder how attainment is going to be measured?

In school I can use the experience of using levels in the past and using SOLO taxonomy to rate the difficulty of concepts and structure a scheme of work that moves from uni and multi-structural to relational and extended abstract (where appropriate). However, not everyone will have that experience and knowledge to fall back on.

Question 6: Do you agree that the draft programmes of study provide for effective progression between the key stages?

As the 2015 proposed curriculum is very similar to the 1999 version, I would imagine that the answer to this is "yes" as I thought that the 1999 version of the national curriculum provided adequate progression.

Question 7: Do you agree that we should change the subject information and communication technology to computing, to reflect the content of the new programmes of study for this subject? 

I am not going to answer this question as I don't feel qualified to.

Question 8: Does the new National Curriculum embody an expectation of higher standards for all children?

In previous blog posts I have compared the science national curriculum to the 1999 national curriculum and I really don't think that it represents "harder" science. Except in the inclusion of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in physics.

Question 9: What impact - either positive or negative - will our proposals have on the 'protected characteristic' groups?

This is an interesting question. Having read the response by the Sex Education Forum http://www.sexeducationforum.org.uk/media/13078/sef_-_nc_response_25_march_2013.pdf It does concern me that vulnerable students may not get the information they need from the science curriculum to make informed choices. Particularly when it comes to sexual health and also when it comes to disease.

I think that the 2008 science programme of study was concise enough for schools to create a curriculum that met the needs of their students. However, as most schools will be trying to implement a science curriculum that prepares students for their key stage 4 studies, and I believe that what has been written isn't far from what most schools will be teaching currently.

Question 10: To what extent will the new National Curriculum make clear to parents what their children should be learning at each stage of their education?

I wonder if I can write that the energy section of the physics key stage 3 curriculum is confusing? And that the overlap between physics and chemistry would make it unclear to parents where students should learn about particles.

Question 11: What key factors will affect schools’ ability to implement the new National Curriculum successfully from September 2014?

TIME!

Question 12: Who is best placed to support schools and/or develop resources that schools will need to teach the new National Curriculum?

ASE - am I biased? I am not going to write pearson, collins etc! Although a lot of the textbooks authors are ASE members! If Kieth Johnson wants to write another chapter of Physics for You because of the new national curriculum I would guess that it would support teachers. Unfortunately there is no network of support left in the LAs to support. I will not be writing "teaching schools" either. I would guess that if the DfE does want to support teachers they will allow people to bid to supply that support and the SLC would be well placed to bid, and then schools won't let staff out...

Question 13: Do you agree that we should amend the legislation to disapply the National Curriculum programmes of study, attainment targets and statutory assessment arrangements, as set out in section 12 of the consultation document?

At secondary level, it is vital that we maximise schools’ capacity to support and prepare pupils to succeed in more rigorous GCSEs. We therefore propose to disapply the current programmes of study for all subjects at Key Stage 3 (English, mathematics, science, art and design, citizenship, design and technology, geography, history, modern foreign languages, music and PE) and Key Stage 4 (English, mathematics, science, citizenship and PE) from September 2013. Disapplication would continue until the new programmes of study came into force for each subject for each year group. The ICT programmes of study have already been disapplied from September 2012.

I think that this is actually a good idea. It gives schools the change to fill the gaps with current year 7 students who will be doing the new gcses in 2015. 

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.