Physics? What's that?

[luckykaa]

"Somebody stole my subject", complains a Physics Teacher (and this is the same guy who did the wi-fi strip I linked to last week).

Grrr!  This sort of thing really makes me angry.  The Physics Syllabus was watered down when I took it.  It looks like it's getting worse. 

Seriously, who writes these questions?  "Why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals?"  Because you can cram half a dozen digital radio stations into the bandwidth taken up by one FM station! 

Comments

[spacefall.livejournal.com]

Argh, that's so depressing :/

[luckykaa.livejournal.com]

Felt I should try and propagate it a little. We need proper science education. Or at least some sort of science education.

[reapermum.livejournal.com]

I'm a school lab tech. I can tell you the chemistry and biology are no better. Forensics are a hook to hang what? on. We now have students who can make a plaster cast of a foot print, lift a fingerprint and know that horse, guinea pig and human hair look different under a microscope, but they still don't know any science.

[jaxomsride.livejournal.com]

Good grief, they'll be getting them to evaluate creationism vs Darwin next!

[masterofapath.livejournal.com]

Hmm.. yes watering down of science bad. One of the basic principles of science is the examination of evidence, so I took a look at the AQA website and read some of their PDFs.

I skimmed through the material pertaining to single subject Physics GCSEs on the AQA website and found largely reasoned descriptions of the sort of actual science that should be included.

I'm afraid that I baulked at the idea of reading the "all in one" science GCSE syllabuses and exam papers as they are bound to be pretty weak and watery.

I didn't find any of the examples cited in his complaint in the document he links to, although he does later refer to a January physics exam (without mentioning which course or tier it was) unfortunately the AQA aren't scheduled to release January's papers on their site until October (why on earth do we have to wait 8 months?).

Some of the questions on the foundation paper I looked at (June 2006 Physics A (Modular)) were a bit fill in the blanks in nature (giving a list of words to choose from). I admit these could well be considered a bit too easy. To counter I would argue that there is a need for a gradient of questions on a GCSE paper so that lower grades can fairly be assigned, and these questions were not present on the Higher Tier version of the paper.

A small number of the questions seemed to depend on general physics related knowledge (knowing the names of SETI and radio-telescopes, and a little about tectonic plate theory). It may well have been on the syllabus for the year, or alternatively be intended to reward students with a broader knowledge of their subject.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way to asses the actual paper Wellington Grey refers to in its entirety for now (short of finding a copy elsewhere). Hopefully things aren't really as bad as suggested on Higher Tier single subject physics exam papers.

I guess unless Wellington updates his references to clearly state where his examples came from and hopefully point to the appropriate documents on-line (assuming the AQA has published them on their website) or I see the actual papers (which I will try to remember to look for in October) then I'm not going to be utterly convinced that the rot is as bad as he suggests.

[reapermum.livejournal.com]

We are 9 months into a new syllabus. Separate sciences have tended not to be offered in comprehensive schools, only combined. Now there is more watering down and more choice. There is core science which everyone is supposed to do, which counts as one GCSE (and is the same as the first year of the old combined). Then they can add (if the school permits) additional science (the second year of the old combined) applied science (aimed at low ability groups) or a separate science (we are only offering biology)

As it's a new course the exams have so far only been supplied to the schools as exemplars, the students sat some of the real thing last week with more next week.

[emperor-zhark.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a physics graduate (I'm not a teacher), I have to say that it looks rather disturbing. As he says, this looks more like English comprehension rather than physics.

It's interesting that history teachers are making similar complaints about their syllabuses and exams.

[raygungothic.livejournal.com]

The people responsible for current curricula need to be summarily whipped, then sent to labour in salt mines for the rest of their short and miserable lives. That's all there is to say.

When I am tyrant, pupils will be expected to bring their own relevance to school; the state will not provide it.

[shebit.livejournal.com]

What a crock of shit (if you'll excuse my Anglo Saxon).

When I took GCSE physics I had to learn a dozen or more equations and, more importantly, about different kinds of heat and energy transfer, friction - actualy science.

Pah!