My initial thought on the new syllabus was one of optimism. I had sat on the initial meetings in Brisbane when a change of syllabus was mooted (headed by John O’Brien) as concerns had been raised about the current syllabus being too content heavy. The outcome was basically a round table discussion about making profound changes to the syllabus. There was a feeling of optimism with the idea of moving towards less content so that greater depth could be explored on concepts of choice and a rationalisation of the 3 criteria needed for assessment to a single mark system. Both of which appeared to promise lifting the current workload so that teachers can get into the classroom and teach good physics.
The feeling was that if we are assessing how well students respond to a particular item of assessment then a single mark only should reflect this response. The mark is valid only if the item itself is valid. The purpose of the moderating panel would be more to assess the validity of the item rather than so much the student response. To me this appeared to be a positive step. It may seem to be a return to the old system where students encountered higher and higher hurdles as they progressed through any item but the items would be moderated or standardised.
The reduction of content also was a positive step. I remembered complaining to the Principal on many occasions that school interruptions were making it difficult to get through the course and so sometimes had to teach token lessons in order that certain content would appear on a particular paper. I liked the idea where the teacher and the student could embark on mini adventures on a particular concept and not be too worried about having insufficient time to cover mandatory concepts outlined in the syllabus.
In-services that followed, particularly with the Butler/Beasley duo, further inspired confidence in a change of syllabus. The head of Physics at UQ felt that Physics at tertiary level was doomed unless changes were made both in the secondary sector and the tertiary sector. She felt that a good approach to learning good physics was to adopt the system used by the medical school where assessment was project based. She also stated that she was not so much interested in how much physics a student knows when entering the course but how he/she could problem solve. Personally, I couldn’t visualise how a course based purely on projects could work in the class setting and I voiced my feelings at the time. To me the approach appeared to favour only the high to very high achievers while the rest would just tag along particularly if the going got tough. My statement was that it probably would work well with the medical students as they have the maturity and as they are the very best of our students anyway.
The promise was there but the delivery, to me, was very different. Instead of a single mark system we now have 9 aspects to assess in any item. This year (being a beginner), I have tried to use criteria sheets provided by others. I have tried to modify them somewhat and still have not succeeded in being able to use them with any confidence when assessing a student’s worth. The two worries I have is (1) what does an “A” look like for an essay and (2) my gut feeling is a “B” so tick all the “B” boxes.
The promise to reduce content and so explore fewer concepts to more depth was delivered. However, while in theory, less content should inspire greater depth students (even the better students) opt for breadth instead. Because EEIs and ERTs consume a great percentage of class time there is less opportunity for me to do anything but teach the basic concepts (so that they have some initial tools to attack a particular task). I have interrupted proceedings to model expectations of depth but to no avail. To me it seems that words get in the way of in depth analysis of a particular topic. I used Richard Walding’s “The Scallop’s Eye” for the final ERT this year and had taught the basics of optics and modelled some old style CRP which were closely related to the topic. I had asked for in depth analysis of the focus questions and gave appropriate feedback. Unfortunately, by the time the focus questions were done by the student, the learning had appeared “fixed” as feedback had little effect on the outcome. My initial response on looking at all students was to fail them all as they had not responded to feedback given. So I basically marked them as though I was teaching a high stream SOSE and managed a couple of Bs.
To me the EEI and the ERT should be removed completely. I have never had a problem with the SA, supervised (and unsupervised) prac write-ups, nor a decent assignment (even in the form of a project). The promise of “less is more” has failed dismally in this current syllabus such that there is much more in terms of time spent by both the student and the teacher for dubious outcomes. Probably the main “less” is my time spent in class inspiring students to learn physics. This is one year I did not get a Xmas card from my bottom student stating “Sir, I really loved learning about the Big Bang and that other physics – just couldn’t do the maths. Have a good Xmas.”