New JC Science Query

amacca

Hi,

Apologies in advance for the long winded post.

Just wondering if any teachers teaching the new JC science could help a bit, perhaps ones that attended any inservice on the new course. My OH came home the other evening a bit flustered...her issue was very specific but it I'm wondering if its sort of general after having a brief look at what I could find online.

She came home grumbling about not knowing what depth of treatment was required for a topic she was teaching (those weren't her exact words:D but that was the general gist of it, I said Id help:D)

She's teaching photosynthesis and she's not sure how far to go as in her opinion the learning outcomes in the new specification don't exactly nail down what a student should know in enough detail.....thats when you actually manage to find them amongst all the aspirational promotional fluff designed to pad out the website/justify the existence of change for changes sake (just my opinion)

eg: below is all I think the spec has

"describe respiration and photosynthesis as both chemical and biological processes; investigate factors that affect respiration and photosynthesis"

Her textbook has a lot of material in it on the subject ...some of it challenging for senior students in my opinion. For example, it includes the full chemical equation for the process and she's worried that students will have to know this for the exam.

If it was up to me I'd consider the fact that its a common level exam, theres a hell of a lot less contact time than there was in the old course etc and not spend time I don't have getting them to rote learn something like that off ....because lets face it even with a background in chemistry thats what I think most adults would do never mind 12-15 year olds.

But in fairness to the OH she has a whole lot of textbooks from different companies and theres quite a large variation in the material across them so it looks like the book companies are just as confused about what the student should actually know/what depth of treatment is required....Ive noticed all the sample books she has are huge as well...heavy and clocking in at many hundreds of pages with mountains of accompanying companion books, workbooks, keyword books etc which to me seems a little crazy.

So is there a more specific description of what the student should know/a more prescriptive set of outcomes somewhere or is it a case of wait and see if you've guessed properly when exam time comes? Out of interest roughly what are ye covering with photosynthesis........

I probably missed something but if that is all there really is ...I find it kind of amusing given my teacher training (which was not all that long ago) where you would get crucified if you produced a learning outcome as vague as some of those in the new syllabus for a lesson plan.

TLDR: just what do the students have to know about photosynthesis in the new JC science course.

rainbowtrout

amacca wrote: »

So is there a more specific description of what the student should know/a more prescriptive set of outcomes somewhere or is it a case of wait and see if you've guessed properly when exam time comes?

That pretty much sums up the new syllabus. At the inservice, I raised this issue with lots of other issues, as did other teachers and we were just brushed aside. The facilitators have a party line and stuck to it and kept trotting out ' feedback
from 95% of teachers think the new syllabus is great'. When I pointed out that nobody in the room (teachers from across 2 counties) agreed with that, it was glossed over and ignored.

No doubt, we'll revert to the current course in 20 years time.

mirrorwall14

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That pretty much sums up the new syllabus. At the inservice, I raised this issue with lots of other issues, as did other teachers and we were just brushed aside. The facilitators have a party line and stuck to it and kept trotting out ' feedback
from 95% of teachers think the new syllabus is great'. When I pointed out that nobody in the room (teachers from across 2 counties) agreed with that, it was glossed over and ignored.

No doubt, we'll revert to the current course in 20 years time.

I raised this at our last inservice which was a ridiculous 'filler' day because our subjects weren't officially out yet (my draft had been published so it was even more annoying). I also raised it at one of the think tanks and was explicitly told that they envisage the music syllabus to be different in every school. It honestly makes absolutely no sense to me

evolving_doors

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I raised this at our last inservice which was a ridiculous 'filler' day because our subjects weren't officially out yet (my draft had been published so it was even more annoying). I also raised it at one of the think tanks and was explicitly told that they envisage the music syllabus to be different in every school. It honestly makes absolutely no sense to me

Maybe we just have to remember that the JC exam 'actually' doesn't matter anymore... Its about the journey... Is that so bad?
Then again... Like project maths.... Commit to nothing with the students till we see the sample exam papers.
The first step now is to try an realign it with the LC somehow to create some but of sense.

amacca

Wow...just Wow,

I truly wasn't expecting those replies. I had looked at that website a while ago to try and get some details on the new course as it was being discussed and thought it was just an initial draft or broad outline etc etc....I didn't think much of it then given what I had read....I haven't changed my mind.

I was expecting to be told I just hadn't looked hard enough and there was a clear description of what the student had to know somewhere.

It surely won't work?????................I mean I can understand how it can be about the journey but ultimately does every student not have to know where the end destination is never mind their teacher.

I mean if you take just my query above, the learning outcome is

"describe respiration and photosynthesis as both chemical and biological processes; investigate factors that affect respiration and photosynthesis"

That could be interpreted to mean that Junior Cert students do need to know the full chemical equation for photosynthesis/the chemical processes that are occurring etc

But being fairminded I think most would agree if thats the case that leads to rote learning no matter what a teacher does and is that not against what this new JC is supposed to be about?

So thinking about it a bit deeper this and every course ever I suppose is ideologically driven but is there any evidence this new ideology (whatever it is) is successful or the way to go? It would make me uncomfortable if I was a parent I think (in all honesty after reading through the material its not clear what they really want given all the things they aspire to and how undeliverable they will be given the nature of some students and the reality of what schools can deliver given resources, time pressures, student teacher ratios etc etc)....its all fine in JC and maybe even in LC if they align it to this way of thinking but what about when the student reaches college or the workplace....will this way of doing things prepare them for the real world, give them the skills they need or will the jump upwards be even harder than before I wonder......

I heard another former colleague recently mentioning something similar had been tried in New Zealand or Australia it wasn't successful and they reverted back to a standard syllabus where everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet...is there any truth in that?

So this means the OH is effectively teaching on quicksand? she probably does have to cover the full chemical equation/process in case its examinable and she can't give a definitive answer to students if the ask her do they need to know this off by heart for the exam?

I can understand her frustration....she should tell the kids that 95% of teachers are happy with the new syllabus when she's questioned or give them contact details for the NCCA etc so they can ask them.

mirrorwall14

amacca wrote: »

Wow...just Wow,

I truly wasn't expecting those replies. I had looked at that website a while ago to try and get some details on the new course as it was being discussed and thought it was just an initial draft or broad outline etc etc....I didn't think much of it then given what I had read....I haven't changed my mind.

I was expecting to be told I just hadn't looked hard enough and there was a clear description of what the student had to know somewhere.

It surely won't work?????................I mean I can understand how it can be about the journey but ultimately does every student not have to know where the end destination is never mind their teacher.

I mean if you take just my query above, the learning outcome is

"describe respiration and photosynthesis as both chemical and biological processes; investigate factors that affect respiration and photosynthesis"

That could be interpreted to mean that Junior Cert students do need to know the full chemical equation for photosynthesis/the chemical processes that are occurring etc

But being fairminded I think most would agree if thats the case that leads to rote learning no matter what a teacher does and is that not against what this new JC is supposed to be about?

So thinking about it a bit deeper this and every course ever I suppose is ideologically driven but is there any evidence this new ideology (whatever it is) is successful or the way to go? It would make me uncomfortable if I was a parent I think (in all honesty after reading through the material its not clear what they really want given all the things they aspire to and how undeliverable they will be given the nature of some students and the reality of what schools can deliver given resources, time pressures, student teacher ratios etc etc)....its all fine in JC and maybe even in LC if they align it to this way of thinking but what about when the student reaches college or the workplace....will this way of doing things prepare them for the real world, give them the skills they need or will the jump upwards be even harder than before I wonder......

I heard another former colleague recently mentioning something similar had been tried in New Zealand or Australia it wasn't successful and they reverted back to a standard syllabus where everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet...is there any truth in that?

I raised that it will now be 'my fault' if I interpret the thing wrong and my students don't know something for the exam. They couldn't refute the point. It will be our fault when it goes wrong

r93kaey5p2izun

Well JC students already need to know the full chemical equation for photosynthesis so that would hardly be a big issue? But yes, the learning outcomes are vague and we have been told repeatedly that there will be no further guidance on depth of treatment. Each school department is to work together to "unpack" each learning outcome to decide what must be covered under the subheadings Understanding, Skills and Values. We have been told that what is covered will differ from school to school.

We engaged in some of this unpacking at the first inservice and, when we reviewed the different material each group thought necessary for a particular learning outcome, the take home message seemed to be that all the different interpretations were correct but that the bare minimum was absolutely sufficient.

amacca

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I raised that it will now be 'my fault' if I interpret the thing wrong and my students don't know something for the exam. They couldn't refute the point. It will be our fault when it goes wrong

That wouldn't hold up in a court of law.....if their description isn't satisfactory then its their fault, especially if clarification is sought because the description wasn't clear. If it were me I'd go through the description with a fine tooth comb (as irritating as it is that that should be necessary) and send some emails.

amacca

Walker Worried Anklet wrote: »

Well JC students already need to know the full chemical equation for photosynthesis so that would hardly be a big issue?

I didn't think they did...I taught the old course, they had to know the word equation for the process only as far as I remember not the chemical formulae or any description of exactly what chemical mechanisms were taking place during photosynthesis....theres a big difference if thats the case. (They had to do an experiment to test a leaf for starch, know what stomata were, link it to producers in ecology section etc etc but not know chemical formulae and processes afaik)

Walker Worried Anklet wrote: »

But yes, the learning outcomes are vague and we have been told repeatedly that there will be no further guidance on depth of treatment. Each school department is to work together to "unpack" each learning outcome to decide what must be covered under the subheadings Understanding, Skills and Values. We have been told that what is covered will differ from school to school.

Again Wow, just wow..........Maybe its just me but I think thats a deeply misguided approach. Doesn't that also mean that it won't be possible to provide a common exam or else the exam will have to be very general or vague in terms of marking schemes?

Walker Worried Anklet wrote: »

We engaged in some of this unpacking at the first inservice and, when we reviewed the different material each group thought necessary for a particular learning outcome, the take home message seemed to be that all the different interpretations were correct but that the bare minimum was absolutely sufficient.

I can't see any additional educational benefit of the approach above what was there before tbh....in fact I kind of think it sounds like a disaster at this stage.....it will be interesting to see how it pans out in the long term.

r93kaey5p2izun

It could be just the word equation required. I think it's easy enough to do the chemical equation if they know the word equation though - I certainly wouldn't see that as a big challenge.

I agree that the new course and approach are a mess. But I suppose we have to give it a chance. The implementation is a disgrace though.

evolving_doors

amacca wrote: »

I didn't think they did...I taught the old course, they had to know the word equation for the process only as far as I remember not the chemical formulae or any description of exactly what chemical mechanisms were taking place during photosynthesis....theres a big difference if thats the case. (They had to do an experiment to test a leaf for starch, know what stomata were, link it to producers in ecology section etc etc but not know chemical formulae and processes afaik)



Again Wow, just wow..........Maybe its just me but I think thats a deeply misguided approach. Doesn't that also mean that it won't be possible to provide a common exam or else the exam will have to be very general or vague in terms of marking schemes?



I can't see any additional educational benefit of the approach above what was there before tbh....in fact I kind of think it sounds like a disaster at this stage.....it will be interesting to see how it pans out in the long term.

I think you're getting the hang of it now.

amacca

evolving_doors wrote: »

I think you're getting the hang of it now.

I think I may have been better off ignorant. Glad I don't have to teach under those conditions.......A lot more sympathetic to the OH now.

Walker Worried Anklet wrote: »

It could be just the word equation required. I think it's easy enough to do the chemical equation if they know the word equation though - I certainly wouldn't see that as a big challenge.

I agree that the new course and approach are a mess. But I suppose we have to give it a chance. The implementation is a disgrace though.

I suppose..... but I'd question the benefit of them knowing the chemical formulae without having an even deeper understanding of chemistry and the process....it will surely just lead to rote learning of 6CO2 +6H2O -> C6H12O6 + 6O2 with light energy + chlorophyll .......and isn't that against what this course is supposed to be about?

or should ATP etc be explained and described as well (the learning outcome doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't go into this detail) so it doesn't just degenerate into learn this series of letters and numbers in case you get asked in the exam.

I suppose thats what I'm thinking...in an attempt to move away from rote learning I think this has the potential to encourage the opposite.

rainbowtrout

The current ag science syllabus (written in 1969:eek:) used to be mocked for being 5 pages long and incredibly vague, in comparison with its physics, chemistry and biology cousins which were over 100 pages.

It's being revamped for next year, but as it stands, it looks like a ground breaking piece of work compared to the 37 learning outcomes that can be printed on an A4 page for JC science.

Come back old ag science syllabus, all is forgiven.

New JC Science could probably be summed up with 'Sure teach whatever you want, be grand'

evolving_doors

The only certainty that teachers can hope for at this stage is to await exam papers and take that as the standard.

At least they won't be teaching to the exam any more :pac:
Ohhh the ironing.

InBrightestDay

Science teacher here and I can honestly say I much prefer the new course to the old. Basically it's up to the teacher to decide on the depth of treatment on any topic. It all depends on the ability and interest of the students.