Teaching maths recently, it is easy to be ignorant about the collective mess of the science subjects. I thought we only had extreme nonsense with the ridiculous assessment methods – which do in a way pre-ordain and belittle much of our teaching aims. But I was wondering what the fuss is about with the syllabus contents regarding physics. The Senior Maths syllabuses seemed OK (in the actual topics listed over a few pages) while it was only the remaining rhetoric and enormous assessment criteria that was questionable.However, the recent Physics syllabus – the topics ‘list’ by itself – is SHOCKING – so it is NOT just the assessment methods that are strange.
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/learning/1964.html
is the URL address for info on how teachers were supposed to have introduced the new ways of teaching and assessing to Grade 11 by 2008 – I was wondering what physics teachers were talking about when they said their students’ test results were poo-pooed as not enough evidence for assessment. No doubt they are getting questioned at moderation panel meetings for failing to bring in extended student presentations, such as, “People on the move”. No wonder some parents are wondering about marks. No wonder the physics teachers are so frustrated.
In the 1995 syllabus:See the p.3 list of topics and p. 14 onwards for details in the topics- which resembles nicely what I covered at school in the early 1980s. For eg., the Optics section on p 24 and 25 gives specific requirements – eg, the use of ray diagrams, progressively complex formulae, and so on.It served me well to follow complex university physics subjects.
By contrast the new 2007 syllabus is a muddle. It is organised into ‘organisers’, concepts and ideas that cross over each other and make more work – yet again. There is an enthusiasm in education circles to organise things around complex mind-maps with non-empirical arbitrary headings, and then further subdivided into overarching units of ‘contextual’ work , which are hell to type up on a piece of paper for a work plan. By themselves, even the above are not so bad. However, the stand-alone topics that used to be taught solidly in a progression of complexity are now broken up and divided across confusing key concepts and units of work that children are drowning in.
The students won’t get their learning in an orderly way, and therefore fluency cannot be built. If a music or drama teacher walks off the street and is employed on contract (as is happening) the new syllabus does NOT give an orderly set of topics to follow as in the 1995 syllabus, and not even a list of textbooks. The 2007 syllabus – by contrast with the 1995 syllabus – practically snaps at teachers in a sharp rebuke that not even one textbook could be of any use. Students and parents (who thankfully help their children at times of sheer frustration) have always depended on textbooks. If I was a student now, I would hate physics. Young students have told me they regretted taking physics – now I understand why.
The 1995 syllabus is being discarded by QSA, to be replaced by the 2007 syllabus, no wonder good teachers, including male teachers who teach non-nonsense physics, are quitting – The curriculum body has turned a cut-and-dried subject into a flowery project. Themed units might sound enticing but they will not ensure that the underlying mathematical skills are honed and that all physics topics are covered before end of Year 12.
It does not bode well when you read between the lines of the 2007 syllabus introduction:”Science is a social and cultural activity … It incorporates … deep conviction…mental constructions based on personal experiences”.