Bishop Hill Biodiversity and the education system
My daughter started at high school a few weeks back and the prospect of doing proper lessons in specialised subjects has been a welcome prospect for her. However, her introduction to science has been interesting to say the least.
The Scottish curriculum is now entirely project-based so, where my first high-school science lesson took in atomic theory and the periodic table, first-years at our local high school will be learning about biodiversity.
This will be the focus for the whole of the first term.
The idea of the project-based curriculum is that different skills and techniques can be hung off the topic - so far they have made a trap for creepy-crawlies and they look as if they are going to look at sampling techniques in coming days. But from my admittedly somewhat distant perspective it looks as if systematic knowledge is going to be largely absent from the school day. Children will learn skills but will have less of a grasp of the science. It is perhaps a curriculum that will produce laboratory technicians rather than scientists.
What do readers here think?
Reader Comments (63)
On the subject of exams and exam boards, the more cynical amongst the congregation may care to ponder why it is thought proper for the exam boards that generate the papers and syllabus (e.g. Edexcel) are owned by publishing companies (e.g. Pearsons) that produce the materials, teachers guides etc etc.
In my day the teaching materials used were more or less the same, textbooks (supplied by the school, mirabile dictu) were updated every decade or so and one knew more or less from one year to the next what was being taught. Nowadays changes (small and large) are made to the curriculum every year, which strangely enough requires new teachers guides, class materials, revision guides etc.
Funny that.
Commonly known as Integrated Science in some circles. Under the heading of "Biodiversity" we learn biology, physics and chemistry all at the same time. A little dabble here and a little dabble there. The students are all highly motivated by all the cute stuff whilst at the same time learning really deep stuff :-)
The Borg have won. You and your children have been assimilated!
I've sort of skimmed through the comments, as too many seem to be of the bashing type and about how much better the good old days were. I think Mooloo has it right. I was always in advanced math classes (even though I did not particularly like it) and my senior year in HS I was taking calculus, but I was at least a year advanced of the normal curriculum. (Ended up switching to Probability & Statistics.) To expect the average 14 yr old to understand quadratic equations is simply not realistic.
Regarding project based learning - the educational non-profit I've been associated with for the last 16+ years is heavily involved in the concept. We've used it, along with a focus on STEM development, to achieve significant (and measurable) results. The schools we have partnered with are exhibiting test score improvements well above their peers. Students have seen their work utilized by Portland Parks Bureau, the US Forest Service and the US Fish & Wildlife Service, among others. As I tell students in the field, they are scientists for that day, doing exactly the same sort of tasks that the guys with the PhD's do.
Project based learning is not a substitute for teaching the basics of reading, writing, math and science. It is used in conjunction with those basics. Students have to exercise that basic knowledge during the course of the project. PBL helps to develop skills in addition to the traditional learning of the basics. As someone who was hired for an engineering position at a nuclear plant with a degree in History, whose first job out of grad school was as a technical writer at a manufacturing firm when I'd never written tech manuals or knew nothing about manufacturing, and whose current job involves, among other things, construction project management, that I was given with zero construction experience, I'm walking proof that if you had to choose between a well developed set of skills verses a hugely expansive base of knowledge, the former is more likely to be of use in life. (If you don't have to choose and can have both, good for you. You are more likely the exception.)
Perhaps most importantly, project based learning is very good at getting students interested in learning. I'm willing to bet that a good portion of the people here were naturally interested in science or some other subject in school. You didn't have to be pushed or goaded into learning. Unfortunately not every kid walking through the classroom door is like that. For the majority, a class on chemistry, biology, geometery, etc, is just another boring hour that they can't see any need for and which is keeping them from doing something that's fun. When you can get them to learn while doing something they feel is fun and at the same time see as actually being valuable to someone else, you spark their interest and excitement. Hopefully you all have not become so old and stale that you can't remember what it is like to feel that switch flip inside you when you see or learn something new. Being able to see that in the students I've gotten to work with is one of the most rewarding things in my life. And if you are concerned about the quality of education students are getting today, I strongly urge you to get involved in their education in some fashion. You will likely become as hooked as I am.
The official reason the Science curriculum changed was to make it more relevant to kids and hence engage them. This idea being that the decline in the numbers taking Science at degree level was caused by kids becoming bored by the dry teaching at school of a subject that bore little connection with their lives. Change the subject and keep the kids interested.
This coincides with the teaching idea that you should teach the kids techniques rather than facts. In theory kids who understand techniques can then teach themselves.
It also coincides with the idea that teaching facts discriminates in favour of kids from middle class backgrounds.
Don't worry Bish,
Assuming that not much has changed in 20 years..
For many subjects including maths and science, first and second year repeat a lot of what should have been covered in primary school. It does little harm to cover this ground again so that all pupils are on the same page starting 3rd year when Standard Grades start. Even able students from good primary schools will have missed or forgotten some things. It's likely that these 2 years will also be used to judge ability before streaming starts in 3rd year.
Come third year, pupils start Standard Grades; either the real sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology, or "general science" where you will find a lot of shallow rote learning, maybe some "science and society", and probably more eco-worship. The chemistry and physics syllabuses are, as far as I know, comparable to the O-levels you may be familiar with. Biology, in my day at least, was not so rigorous.. expect a lot of rote learning of the names and function of "organelles" and a superficial understanding of genetics and evolution. "General science" serves a purpose in that it ticks a box saying that "every pupil learns science" while filtering those who can do science from those who cannot. (Top tip - avoid the Computing standard grade and look up the syllabus if you wonder why).
For most people, Standard Grades ultimately do not matter and all the universities and employers will care about is Higher Grades which are taken in 5th and 6th year. Again, maths, physics, and chemistry should be as rigorous as you hope they will be but a "sixth year study" may be advisable to close the gap on A-Levels in core subjects to be continued at university. (the gap exists because A-Levels are typically 3 subjects over 2 years, Higher Grades are typically 5 subjects over 1 year).
If you get your children in the habit of doing their homework then I'm sure they will attain the results they need for university and, more importantly, the habit of working unsupervised. School work may be easy enough for able students to coast through with minimal homework but this leads to bad habits which WILL hurt them later.
If it interests your children, learning to program either Python or C# may be a good extra-curricular activity that may aid any future career in science and will not overlap with what they are doing in school. Also, any enjoyable activity involving public speaking may be advantageous since this is a skill the curriculum may be lacking.
Anyway, just make sure that they are enjoying themselves and they will do fine.
Your the Bish and you got Stone Walled. Wonder Why.
A W Montford is on Google dont forget.
How far do you want to push it ?
Everyone on here its none of our personal business whatever you decide.
Remember your kid is stuck in the middle between their and your politics.
Good Luck
Excellent comment genemachine, I particularly relate to the homework routine as two of mine were very gifted, and so coasted, and had some nasty wake-up calls along the way.
I'd also second your suggestion of public speaking, or debating, as that side of things is not covered well in schools, and it's very important in interviews later on especially in the top flight establishments.
Timg56 has hit 3/4 of the head of the nail in regards to project based learning. I can only add a brief bit.
We're not all rote learners. Projects are, or should be, yet an arrow in the quiver for a teacher to deliver information and assess acquisition across the spectrum of learning style students.
On the other hand the trend towards incorporating environmental science as an element of biology or, even worse, as a standalone graduation requirement is troubling. Sadly even the most rigorous independent schools in the U.S. are adopting the practice. Recently one of my children had lessons in geo-caching - glorified treasure hunts - in her secondary school "Intro to Science" course.
That's not project based learning. It's pabulum.
Here is a review of a rather interesting book--"Academically Adrift--that examines outcomes of two and four year college programs. Group study is singled out as an especially useless practice; ""students who studied by themselves for even longer than 12 to 14 hours a week gained more knowledge, while those students who studied in groups saw diminishing gains in knowledge."
Here is a review of a rather interesting book--"Academically Adrift--that examines outcomes of two and four year college programs. Group study is singled out as an especially useless practice; ""students who studied by themselves for even longer than 12 to 14 hours a week gained more knowledge, while those students who studied in groups saw diminishing gains in knowledge":
Adrift.
I omitted the address of the review of "Academically Adrift":
Adrift.
Having some familiarity with best practices in secondary education (in the US), I would say:
- project-based curriculum CAN be an effective way of elevating critical thinking and problem-solving approaches above rote learning;
- be aware that it is more difficult to measure success in teaching critical thinking, and much easier to measure results when assessing rote learning; do not be surprised if you have some frustration in evaluating a project-based curriculum; also, when it comes time to apply for college, the student will want to think outside the box, relying on much more than grades and standardized test scores to make her case.
- contrary to what a commenter stated about studying alone, current research shows that learning from peers is enormously important. (The commenter's point may hold for study outside the classroom, but should NOT be interpreted to mean that students work best by themselves in the classroom: the opposite is true.)
- as always, success depends greatly on the teachers; if they are wholeheartedly committed to project-based learning, that in itself is a point in favor; if not, then I suspect you might have seat-warmers for teachers, and reverting to teaching the facts may or may not help.
Forgot to add:
Ideally in the project-based approach the student will circle back and obtain the systematic knowledge -- after they understand why they need it.
Admittedly there have always been exceptional students who are so hungry to learn they will do it without being told why they should want to learn a particular fact or idea. I was fortunate enough to be more or less in that category.
For many others, the motivation offered by project-based learning is a great help; it is probably good even for those who bring their own spark plugs.