Why no consensus?

There is little disagreement about the scientific knowledge and explanations that we teach in our biology, chemistry and physics courses. Some may prefer a concept-led approach, others a context-led approach but the content is essentially the same.

Why then is there still no consensus about the aspects of ‘how science works’ that we should be including in our GCSE courses? Ofqual has provided new criteria to define the central elements of GCSE science courses from 2011, but a quick look at the revised GCSE specifications developed by the Awarding Organisations shows that there are wide variations in the approach to ‘how science works’. The specifications have been revised and resubmitted to Ofqual and can be seen on these web sites:

Some specifications set out a clear rationale for teaching this strand of the science curriculum and integrate the ideas explicitly with the science content. This seems very helpful for teachers, learners and examiners. Other specifications, however, only seem to suggest where ‘how science works’ ideas might be introduced by implication. It is hard to judge, in these specifications, what needs to be taught and what examiners can legitimately test.

As the ‘how science works’ theme on this website shows, we have been teaching about ‘how science works’ since the 1960s – and earlier. There have been ground-breaking projects such as ‘Science in Society’, ‘Science in a Social Context’ and SATIS. Pioneers, such as Joan Solomon have worked with teachers to devise resources that are as valuable today as they were when they were written. The activities in her books ‘Exploring the Nature of Science’ for Key stage 3 and Key stage 4 are good examples. Both these books of activities can be found in the National STEM Centre e-Library.

Given the length of time that we have been teaching about ‘how science works’, why is there still so little consensus about what the learning outcomes should be and how the learning should be assessed?