Better to do one thing well…

One of the things that is pretty well understood about the new GCSE science courses is that pupils will have to be able to plan and run investigations. So they should; it’s the bedrock of science. A lot of time and effort will go into the planning of controlled assessments to make sure that pupils stand the best possible chance.

For some teachers the approach they are planning to take is to provide pupils with a rather similar task to the controlled assessment, say a week before, to make sure that pupils understand what they need to do. Now, it’s not my place to comment on whether this is good practice. It’s likely that some pupils will appreciate the opportunity to understand what’s expected of them, others will get a little cynical about repeating work and a number of teachers will say “Well, if that’s what it needs to get the pupils the grades they deserve….”

The funny thing is though, I’m not sure it works. The number of times that teachers have commented on the capacity of pupils to miss out or misinterpret key points “even though we’d been over it only a few days before.” The truth of the matter is, I suspect, that unless the skills of investigating are embedded throughout a course, most pupils won’t suddenly pick them up just because an assessment is on the horizon.

Actually, we can go a bit further than that. Not only do the skills need to be embedded throughout the course, they also need to be developed individually. Sometimes when I’m observing a lesson a teacher will say that the practical investigation the pupils are doing “is great, because you can use it to address so many skills.” I’m sure you can; I’m not convinced that you should because I don’t think it works. If you’re keen that pupils become more proficient at, for example, writing a better conclusion, then make that the main focus of the activity. Don’t also be trying to make a big thing out of how to identify variables, how to construct a graph and how to evaluate the investigation. Refer to them by all means and remind pupils (even better, get them to remind you) what good practice looks like, but have a single main focus on the development of investigative skills.

A useful parallel can be drawn with acquiring concepts. We’d space out the acquisition of new concepts in, say, genetics or ionising radiation over a sequence of lessons. Cramming too much into one lesson is counterproductive. No doubt when schemes of work are overhauled to support the new courses much thought will be given as to which ideas are developed where, and rightly so. The same should happen with investigative skills. Like the electrons in Thomson’s “plum pudding” model of the atom they should be dotted throughout the structure and lead to an overall balance.

Now, this will need an investment of time, both in terms of planning and delivery. How about this as a thought: controlled assessments count for 25% of the marks so 25% of lesson time should be used to develop the skills that they assess. Now that should allow the skills to be progressively developed.

Ed Walsh, Science Advisor with Cornwall Learning.

Other Articles

Getting comfortable with unseen poetry

Of all the different forms of writing that we study in English, poetry often seems to be the one with which students feel the least comfortable.  The fact that it simply doesn’t look like prose creates an instant barrier.  It’s unsurprising then that young people find the requirement to explore… Read More

Academic writing for GCSE

Academic writing just means that our students need to write in a formal manner that reflects their level of educational and is distinct from how they would converse orally or via text.  A good approach is to gradually introduce students to a range of ways in which they can ensure their writing is more academic.  I find it helpful to divide these into three aims: being concise, being precise, and being sophisticated. Read More

Avoiding empty analysis in GCSE English

It’s important that we encourage students to explore structure and form when they are analysing a literary text.  However, this can sometimes lead to empty analysis.  I’ve regularly read comments on exam papers like, ‘The writer uses a comma to convey how the two people are separate’ or ‘By writing in rhyming couplets, the poet demonstrates the speaker’s love for her partner’.  Responses like these are often based on good ideas but, unfortunately, the analysis is tenuous: a comma doesn’t actually mean anything; a rhyming couplet doesn’t instantly represent love. Read More