New Junior Cert Science Curriculum

Seth Brundle

(Mods, wasn't sure if this should go in the Junior Cert forum or not)

My child recently started first year and I'm struggling to understand how science is being "taught" under the new curriculum.

There appears to be a lot of practical work but no info on why they are doing it. Recently they were given litmus paper and told to take it home and dip it in stuff and to come back and compare the results. They weren't told what the paper was of anything about the pH scale etc. So effectively they are performing tests with no knowledge as to why. I just can’t see the learning potential being maximised here.

In terms of their recent Christmas exams, they didn't know what to revise because the books we bought in August aren't being used. Nothing they did in class was on the exam.
Subsequently they didn't get a grade after the exam.

Is this normal?
Is this really better methodology than the old rote learning?

happywithlife

kbannon wrote: »

(Mods, wasn't sure if this should go in the Junior Cert forum or not)

My child recently started first year and I'm struggling to understand how science is being "taught" under the new curriculum.

There appears to be a lot of practical work but no info on why they are doing it. Recently they were given litmus paper and told to take it home and dip it in stuff and to come back and compare the results. They weren't told what the paper was of anything about the pH scale etc. So effectively they are performing tests with no knowledge as to why. I just can’t see the learning potential being maximised here.

In terms of their recent Christmas exams, they didn't know what to revise because the books we bought in August aren't being used. Nothing they did in class was on the exam.
Subsequently they didn't get a grade after the exam.

Is this normal?
Is this really better methodology than the old rote learning?

Have you had your parent teacher meeting? If not raise your points then with teacher. If you had it already and feel strongly about it make a call to teacher- ask teacher to check your child's note copy against another one to ensure they are taking notes down properly. I'd be surprised if topics not done in class were on the test - can't see it being best practice. That's not say questions wouldn't be new to students but the topics should not be

judeboy101

kbannon wrote: »

(Mods, wasn't sure if this should go in the Junior Cert forum or not)

My child recently started first year and I'm struggling to understand how science is being "taught" under the new curriculum.

There appears to be a lot of practical work but no info on why they are doing it. Recently they were given litmus paper and told to take it home and dip it in stuff and to come back and compare the results. They weren't told what the paper was of anything about the pH scale etc. So effectively they are performing tests with no knowledge as to why. I just can’t see the learning potential being maximised here.

In terms of their recent Christmas exams, they didn't know what to revise because the books we bought in August aren't being used. Nothing they did in class was on the exam.
Subsequently they didn't get a grade after the exam.

Is this normal?
Is this really better methodology than the old rote learning?

its called constructivism i believe and it onl really works if you have kids who are super bright or super eager, your bog standard mary or paddy dont benefit from this. a simple analogy would be sending a car engine home with a physics teacher and asking him to figure out what it is and how it works, easy for a physics teacher even if he never has seen a car engine before as he has a wealth of knowledge and experience to back him up. Now send that same engine home with your child and ask them to do the same. The new maths course got rid of rote learning and has led to a decrease in mathematical standards at 3rd level ,http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/project-maths-linked-to-decline-in-third-level-performance-1.2242148
Why? because while you and i instinctively know what 6x9 is in our heads when asked, the new generation are conditioned to try to figure it out.

the new science course has 20% less time given to it than the old course and is missing things e.g no plant reproduction, kidney etc. imagine a child can now go through all primary and secondary school and never know they have a kidney or that some plants reproduce using seeds

amacca

judeboy101 wrote: »

its called constructivism i believe and it onl really works if you have kids who are super bright or super eager, your bog standard mary or paddy dont benefit from this. a simple analogy would be sending a car engine home with a physics teacher and asking him to figure out what it is and how it works, easy for a physics teacher even if he never has seen a car engine before as he has a wealth of knowledge and experience to back him up. Now send that same engine home with your child and ask them to do the same. The new maths course got rid of rote learning and has led to a decrease in mathematical standards at 3rd level ,http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/project-maths-linked-to-decline-in-third-level-performance-1.2242148
Why? because while you and i instinctively know what 6x9 is in our heads when asked, the new generation are conditioned to try to figure it out.

the new science course has 20% less time given to it than the old course and is missing things e.g no plant reproduction, kidney etc. imagine a child can now go through all primary and secondary school and never know they have a kidney or that some plants reproduce using seeds

Ive looked over whats available online on the new science curriculum before and I wasn't impressed at the time but I can't help thinking I must not have seen a full description - If I have its very poor imo and very poorly laid out on the website also (perhaps deliberately to make it difficult to analyse it? - its poor in a similar way the exam papers on the dept examinations website are made available imo - illogically/frustratingly difficult)

Am I correct in saying the new curriculum also is very non-specific in what it actually expects the students to know at the end of the course? or was that just my reading of it?

From looking at the website there seems to be a lot of airy fairy aspirational general skills stuff with not much in the way of solid things they should know? and where you could see something like a syllabus objective it was quite broad

Are there any sample exam papers available to get an idea of the standard and type of question that might be asked?

I am open to correction but I'm very much in the its not fit for purpose at all camp myself.......

judeboy101

amacca wrote: »

Ive looked over whats available online on the new science curriculum before and I wasn't impressed at the time but I can't help thinking I must not have seen a full description - If I have its very poor imo and very poorly laid out on the website also (perhaps deliberately to make it difficult to analyse it? - its poor in a similar way the exam papers on the dept examinations website are made available imo - illogically/frustratingly difficult)

Am I correct in saying the new curriculum also is very non-specific in what it actually expects the students to know at the end of the course? or was that just my reading of it?

From looking at the website there seems to be a lot of airy fairy aspirational general skills stuff with not much in the way of solid things they should know? and where you could see something like a syllabus objective it was quite broad

Are there any sample exam papers available to get an idea of the standard and type of question that might be asked?

I am open to correction but I'm in the its not fit for purpose at all camp myself

you wont see papers for another couple of years, but for a flavour have a look at the type of q's on the new jc english paper

https://www.examinations.ie/misc-doc/BI-EX-10094598.pdf

compare it to the old

https://www.examinations.ie/tmp/1486231187_5603941.pdf

PureClareGold

amacca wrote: »

Ive looked over whats available online on the new science curriculum before and I wasn't impressed at the time but I can't help thinking I must not have seen a full description - If I have its very poor imo and very poorly laid out on the website also (perhaps deliberately to make it difficult to analyse it? - its poor in a similar way the exam papers on the dept examinations website are made available imo - illogically/frustratingly difficult)

Am I correct in saying the new curriculum also is very non-specific in what it actually expects the students to know at the end of the course? or was that just my reading of it?

From looking at the website there seems to be a lot of airy fairy aspirational general skills stuff with not much in the way of solid things they should know? and where you could see something like a syllabus objective it was quite broad

Are there any sample exam papers available to get an idea of the standard and type of question that might be asked?

I am open to correction but I'm very much in the its not fit for purpose at all camp myself.......

Why do you need sample papers to know how to teach? Is that not just teaching to the test? Is that what we really want for our 15 year olds?

amacca

PureClareGold wrote: »

Why do you need sample papers to know how to teach? Is that not just teaching to the test? Is that what we really want for our 15 year olds?

Its not what I really need at all as I left it for pastures greener a while back, I was just curious

It was exactly what I needed to do well in education and life in general....learning how to do well in all kinds of tests is part of life - its just nice to know what the actual test is so you can practice the skills required....its much easier to tell what the skills required are from an assessment than looking at colourful venn diagrams with lots of airy fairy (imo) with a decent percentage vague middle management aspirational self help style double speak (again imo and presented that way for PR reasons among others imo) - I find the approach of looking at how something is assessed (in combination with other approaches) in order to prepare and do well at the assessment quite logical and I'm not sure what your issue is......if the test is designed properly then looking at it and preparing for it that way will yield the outcomes the designer intended...if it doesn't then the designer is at fault

I think the intelligent thing to do would be figure out what your assessor requires, narrow it down to specifics and get good at it rather than dilute your effort across a broad range of areas that may not be of interest....and rinse repeat for all of the rest of life little tests...the approach has worked very well for me in life in most areas tbh

I'm not quite sure where the new wave's almost pathological rejection of having focus and concentration on a task and preparing for it by looking at previous assessment tasks is coming from? I think its very misguided

judeboy101

PureClareGold wrote: »

Why do you need sample papers to know how to teach? Is that not just teaching to the test? Is that what we really want for our 15 year olds?

You do realize that more and more children are starting school at 5 not 4, meaning most do jc turning if not already 16. Kids need rights of passage, and kids need to measure themselves against their peers whether its physically in the school yard or academically is the classroom. You can never truly appreciate coming first unless you taste the bitterness of coming second.

PureClareGold

judeboy101 wrote: »

You do realize that more and more children are starting school at 5 not 4, meaning most do jc turning if not already 16. Kids need rights of passage, and kids need to measure themselves against their peers whether its physically in the school yard or academically is the classroom. You can never truly appreciate coming first unless you taste the bitterness of coming second.

Didn't say they didn't need exams. Asked why do we as teachers need sample papers in order to know what to teach? If that is the way for teachers then it is the exam that decides the way they teach.

judeboy101

PureClareGold wrote: »

Didn't say they didn't need exams. Asked why do we as teachers need sample papers in order to know what to teach? If that is the way for teachers then it is the exam that decides the way they teach.

Do you think the Scottish team would have won today, if they just read the rule book? No they sat down and studied their opponents watched PAST matches and analysed every aspect of our game. That's why its nice for me and my students to see a past or sample paper.

PureClareGold

judeboy101 wrote: »

Do you think the Scottish team would have won today, if they just read the rule book? No they sat down and studied their opponents watched PAST matches and analysed every aspect of our game. That's why its nice for me and my students to see a past or sample paper.

Absolutely agree. But I doubt when they were first learning the game in the Highlands as youngsters they were studying the Irish game plan. I reckon they were working on their basic skills and over time they developed them and built on them, adapted them and then got to the point where they were good enough to put to practical use on the bigger stage.

mtoutlemonde

PureClareGold wrote: »

Didn't say they didn't need exams. Asked why do we as teachers need sample papers in order to know what to teach? If that is the way for teachers then it is the exam that decides the way they teach.

So you teach without looking at an exam to see what an examiner is looking for? Getting the students to understand the terms? Explaining what they need to do to gain the highest possible marks.

judeboy101

PureClareGold wrote: »

Absolutely agree. But I doubt when they were first learning the game in the Highlands as youngsters they were studying the Irish game plan. I reckon they were working on their basic skills and over time they developed them and built on them, adapted them and then got to the point where they were good enough to put to practical use on the bigger stage.

Nowadays maybe but back in the day you turned up got a ball in hand and told to hit that fu**er hard, meanwhile your coach was in the stands watching your next sun opponents playing, taking notes. Now you turn up spend weeks running round chasing some fool with a strip hanging out his arse being til not to touch him just grab the scratch. Then its onto playing for fun and not keeping score .

amacca

PureClareGold wrote: »

Absolutely agree. But I doubt when they were first learning the game in the Highlands as youngsters they were studying the Irish game plan. I reckon they were working on their basic skills and over time they developed them and built on them, adapted them and then got to the point where they were good enough to put to practical use on the bigger stage.

I doubt their underage coach prepared them for a competitive game without reference to the oppositions traits and characteristics and how to go about exploiting the weaknesses and negating the strong points and if they did I doubt he/she was successful...I know its a big part of the senior and the junior cup competitions here as is figuring out what physical training regimes/drills etc are most beneficial for the sport rather than just doing a bit of all of them

but thats rugby and its not a great analogy imo

r93kaey5p2izun

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiltIbH8fjRAhUJJ8AKHVgEA3wQFggbMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.curriculumonline.ie%2Fgetmedia%2F153bc83f-9848-49f0-ad87-0a0d6b9b596c%2FSpecification-for-Jr-Cycle-Science-EV_20160126-(1).pdf&usg=AFQjCNH-adboVpTgIIJQuDMieQmC69NVFA

This is the new specification in pdf format - it contains all the information on the new course. The content learning outcomes are indeed vague. We have been told that no further clarification on depth of treatment will be provided. The Science Department in each school is to "unpack" each learning outcome and decide, in the context of Understanding, Skills and Values, what exactly it will cover. There will be differences in what exactly students learn between different schools as a result. No sample papers have been provided as yet but we are assured they will be vague enough (at a common level) to account for the variation in content covered in different schools.

Can you be more specific when you say they hadn't covered what was on the exam? Did the exam contain specific content questions they hadn't covered? Or did it it contain some sort of data that could be interpreted and analysed without any specific content knowledge?

Also, in terms of not receiving a grade - did they receive any feedback? Witholding grades (percentage, A/B/C) is being promoted as best practice (at least for some of the time), but feedback should be given.

Seth Brundle

Lyla Fat Anger wrote: »

Can you be more specific when you say they hadn't covered what was on the exam? Did the exam contain specific content questions they hadn't covered? Or did it it contain some sort of data that could be interpreted and analysed without any specific content knowledge?

Topics about scientists they had not looked at were asked for example. They were told afterwards to look them up online in their own time.
I'm after pushing them and they reckon half (not nothing as I previously said) was not covered in class.

Lyla Fat Anger wrote: »

Also, in terms of not receiving a grade - did they receive any feedback? Witholding grades (percentage, A/B/C) is being promoted as best practice (at least for some of the time), but feedback should be given.

No feedback was given. At all. No grades, discussion of answers in any useful detail or even returned papers. To me it's a pointless subject now.

judeboy101

kbannon wrote: »

Topics about scientists they had not looked at were asked for example. They were told afterwards to look them up online in their own time.
I'm after pushing them and they reckon half (not nothing as I previously said) was not covered in class.

No feedback was given. At all. No grades, discussion of answers in any useful detail or even returned papers. To me it's a pointless subject now.

Pointless? It's not even a core subject at 2nd level. Imagine a country like Ireland which is pinning its future on an stem based economy and science is optional at secondary level.

r93kaey5p2izun

kbannon wrote: »

Topics about scientists they had not looked at were asked for example. They were told afterwards to look them up online in their own time.
I'm after pushing them and they reckon half (not nothing as I previously said) was not covered in class.

No feedback was given. At all. No grades, discussion of answers in any useful detail or even returned papers. To me it's a pointless subject now.

That seems very wrong. They couldn't possibly answer on content they haven't covered. Not giving feedback is ridiculous - did they go over the test in class?

Personally, I believe the new specification is appalling. I made several written submissions with detailed criticisms during consultation. I think the whole focus of the new JC is the wrong path for education. I think we are ignoring evidence about how students learn best, pushing blindly towards generic skills with the teacher as a facilitator guide at a time when many countries are examining mounting evidence for the success of deliberate practice and explicit instruction.

But I don't think the new course can take the blame for setting exams the students cannot answer or failing to give any sort of feedback.

implausible

kbannon wrote:

No feedback was given. At all. No grades, discussion of answers in any useful detail or even returned papers. To me it's a pointless subject now.

Ah here, that's not a problem with the JC, that's a problem with the school. Exam papers should be returned to students and feedback is v important in the new JC, whether it be verbal or a written comment.

It doesn't matter what you're studying at what level, students need feedback

Moody_mona

In terms of not getting a grade, did you not even get a report? Detailing all subjects and the grades? I would have thought that the norm.

I don't focus too much on using books, so that side doesn't have to be a negative.

As above posters have said, I think the issue here is with the school not the new curriculum. Have you tried phoning the office to make an appointment with the teacher? Or made contact through the child's journal? I'd hate to think there was a parent talking about me and my class, I'd prefer if they just came to me. (you're perfectly entitled to ask, I'm not criticising that, I'm just encouraging you to look involve the school)