Re-thinking Science at KS3

Why I am I thinking about this?

What happens to the enthusiasm for science in students as they move from KS3 to KS4? Why are many students keen to do practical work in science? Why do we never have enough time to answer students wider, science-related questions?

What do we see in many Y7/8 students?

When we teach science to a class of 30 year 7 students, it is clear to see (in many of them) real enthusiasm and interest. The students are bursting with questions  and they are eager to have immediate answers. As teachers, we want to answer their questions, dispel their misconceptions and misunderstandings and satisfy their curiosity.

However, the questions never end (they really never end) and it is impossible to make sure that all your class understand your answers. Before you know it, half your lesson time is gone and you haven't even started on your main "learning objective". You have your short & medium term plans to follow, there are several groups following the same scheme of work, heading towards the same end of topic assessments, and so you cannot afford to fall behind. You have to move the lesson on, stop answering questions and focus on the content you are supposed to be teaching.

Are we doing a practical today?

Every KS3 lesson starts with at least one student saying "Are we doing a practical today?", followed by their face dropping when they realise that the answer is "no". It is clear that some students see practical work as a fun alternative to doing written tasks whether or not it actually benefits them in terms of their overall education. However, it is also evident that many students are enthused by the thought of practical lessons in science - again irrespective of whether or not there are any actual educational benefits.

So what I'm saying is ...

We have many students who have a real interest in science at KS3. Lots of students see science as a lesson where they will do practical activities. The science teacher is seen as a font of all scientific knowledge that some students would like to tap into. We seem to be letting them down (in terms of their hopes and expectations) in some respects because we cannot spend time either answering all their questions satisfactorily and we cannot make science lessons all about the practical tasks.

Why do we do what we do at KS3?

The National Curriculum for KS3 Science lists around 140 topics to be covered in Chemistry, Biology & Physics along with 20 points about "working scientifically". You can imagine this being translated into a minimum of 160 lessons. In my school we teach 3 science lessons per week at KS3 - so well over 100 per year. In other words, at some level the KS3 science National Curriculum content could be "taught" in less than 1.5 school years.

So what decisions have been taken to create a KS3 science curriculum that expands the National Curriculum content to 2 or 3 full academic years? Which topics have we covered in more depth? Which extra topics have we added? Have we done things to aim the content towards KS4 and GCSEs? Are we "spiralling" our curriculum to come back to topics at more detailed levels each time?

I assume we are all to some extent doing all of the above.

Could we do it differently?

These are just my initial ramblings, but what I am thinking about is:

1: A core set of lessons that cover the National Curriculum in around half of the time available at KS3.

2: Regular assessment based on well-structured, diagnostic topic MCQs given at an appropriate time - not artificially lined up with all the other classes in the year.

3: Removing time-limited, short-term, lesson by lesson curriculum plans so that it doesn't matter if you spend half a lesson addressing interesting, relevant questions.

4: A huge increase in the amount of time spent planning practical investigations, doing practical experiments and writing up their results. Spending large amounts of lesson time on "working scientifically" so that methods, graph work and errors etc. become second nature.

What is the point?

The reason for suggesting that we think about these changes is to encourage more students to maintain their enthusiasm for science well beyond year 7. Even if the evidence is clear that doing practical investigations has no actual benefit in terms of a student's ability to answer practical-related questions in exams, the student's enthusiasm for studying science could be increased.

Similarly, if the science lesson is seen as the place where all the student's questions are answered then it will encourage more students to see the subject as useful and relevant.

In terms of GCSE success, interpreting and understanding graphs along with analysing experimental data, identifying errors and discussing improvements to methods are basic skills that many students find difficult. If we can address these areas in more depth at KS3 then perhaps these skills will seem considerably less daunting.