Science 5-11

A Guide for Teachers

Alan Howe, Christopher Collier, Kendra McMahon, Sarah Earle, Dan Davies

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781134995493
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This third edition of the bestselling textbook Science 5–11 has been fully updated to provide a synthesis of research and best practice in teaching and learning that focuses on successful ways to engage and motivate young scientists.

Responding to the new curriculum, particularly 'Working Scientifically', this edition now includes:

• New sections on whole-school assessment, mentoring, transitions and a topics-based approach.

• 
  
  

• Reference to the 'big ideas' of biology, chemistry and physics with chapters clearly related to this new subject structure.

• 
  
  

• Updated tables of progression in each topic area and reference to cross-curricular contexts.

• 
  
  

• New self-assessment questions for teachers, the option for higher-level thinking and further reading.

• 
  
  

• An updated chapter on subject leadership with an increasing emphasis on monitoring progress.

• 
  
  

Bringing together research undertaken from a range of activities in the field, this book forms a comprehensive and clear guide, outlining the subject knowledge that a teacher needs, the curriculum requirements and the best ways to go about teaching. A practical guide ideal for students, trainees, mentors and other practising teachers, the book provides information on appropriate science topics for Key Stage 1 and 2.

SECTION
1
Teaching science – how theories inform practice

Purpose of this section

In this section we lay out some of the key principles, values and theories that underpin the other sections of the book.

After reading this chapter you should have:

■ reflected on the aims and purposes of teaching science in the primary school;

■ an understanding of the nature of science;

■ an understanding of some theories of learning in relation to science;

■ considered the implications of theory on the pedagogy of science.

What are the aims of primary science?

We believe that every person must have a good science education so that they can participate in society as a scientifically literate individual and make informed choices about their world and their future. We know that lifelong attitudes and enthusiasms can be initiated by powerful experiences during childhood and we believe primary educators have an important responsibility to ensure that children’s experiences of science are positive. It is not the main aim of primary science to produce biochemists, engineers, doctors, ecologists, astronomers and wildlife photographers yet these may be the future professions of the young children sat on the carpet or at their desks in front of you. There may be other children who already have begun to develop a sense that science is ‘difficult’, ‘boring’ or ‘not for me’. Individuals will have a greater or lesser need for an understanding of particular aspects of science in their everyday lives, depending on their roles and interests, and primary science provides the broad foundation for lifelong learning but primary science also has an even broader agenda. We also believe no group, for example women, should be excluded by the ways in which science is presented in school. Teachers have a responsibility to enable all children to access a full science education. Stereotypes about science and scientists must be actively challenged.

Looking beyond the need of the individual, we argue that an important aim of science education as a whole is establishing ‘scientific literacy’ across the population. Science is not something scientists do in isolation from the rest of society. It requires funding, and so the providers of these funds must consider the research to be worthwhile. In many cases science is supported by public money, via taxation. Science is also subject to government regulation, such as ethical guidance for the use of animal experiments and standards for testing medicines. So it is not just scientists that need to make decisions about science and the directions in which science goes. In our roles as consumers, parents, citizens and voters, everyone has a stake in science and, arguably, a responsibility for it. In a scientifically literate society people would engage with science issues that affect our lives and take an active part through democratic processes and personal decisions. In our experience, primary-aged children begin to develop viewpoints on issues that have an ethical as well as a scientific basis, such as how farm animals should be treated and how habitats should be protected. It is likely they will need to think about many such complex issues and participate in debate as they grow up.

Last but not least, we believe that the most important aim of primary science is to foster children’s deep appreciation of the world around – what is sometimes refered to as ‘awe and wonder’. We do this by encouraging a keen eye for observation and a keen mind for questioning. We might see that having to ‘introduce’ the scientific world to children is a great responsibility. In fact it is also a great pleasure, as children introduce us to the world as they see it, we learn too. Through science children will develop an understanding of how natural phenomena, living things and the environment are closely related. This is worthwhile because the world is fascinating, it can amaze, and such encounters enrich our lives.

Here we have outlined some of the beliefs and values that give the authors a passion for science and science teaching. What will your reasons be for teaching science?

What is science?

Arguably, some of our above aims could be achieved through art, through literature, or perhaps through more everyday experiences such as going out for a woodland walk. So what is it that makes the scientific study of the world a distinct and valuable approach? Science provides a unique way of making sense of the world by offering a way of responding to many of those ‘why?’ questions that children have and providing some plausible (but often tentative) answers. Science emphasises knowledge gained through observation and investigation (i.e. it is empirical) but also values evidence, reasoning and critique. Osborne (2015) argues that science is fundamentally about developing ideas. It provides people with a means of engaging with the world in their everyday life, which is empowering rather than fatalistic or superstitious. There are other ways of understanding the world too – the arts, humanities and sciences are not in opposition or on different ‘sides’, rather they can be complementary ways of looking at the world.

Scientific knowledge is tentative; the explanations are the best we have at the moment, but there is always the possibility that these theories will be challenged or replaced in the light of new ideas and evidence. If children are to really understand science, this fundamental view of the nature of science must run through all of science teaching. Science is not standing still – ideas are changing, new evidence is being produced, and creative thinking generates new questions and explanations. Critical thinking tests explanations. Is using a mobile phone dangerous to our health? What are the possible impacts of light pollution? At any one time, scientists may disagree about explanations, and different studies may provide conflicting evidence yet the argument that science should be studied as one of the great cultural achievements of modern times is a compelling one.

Scientific knowledge could be defined as the ideas any individual constructs as a result of scientific reasoning. Ask yourself ‘What happens to your food after you have swallowed it?’, ‘Where does the Sun go at night?’, ‘Why are house bricks heavier than balloons?’ Now consider where these ideas came from. We all enage in scientific reasoning as we try to make sense of what we see. Osborne (2015, p. 17) identifies types or styles of reasoning that could be summarised for primary education as: experimenting, sorting/ classifying, pattern-seeking, hypothesising, and mathematical reasoning. Osborne also identifies a sixth type, that of ‘historical-based thinking’ (p. 17) which encompasses the ‘evolution’ of big ideas of science over the centuries. This reasoning has resulted in a body of knowledge that is held by the scientific community as a whole, including inherent tensions, contradictions and uncertainties. This presents particular challenges for teaching science that we hope to address in subsequent chapters. We need to consider how this tentativeness can be communicated, while at the same time acknowledging the value of the existing body of knowledge. We also need to help children to get to grips with ideas that have developed over thousands of years.

The time-scale for changes in the better-established concepts in science seems to be sufficiently long that there is a fairly stable body of knowledge that primary children can get to grips with that is likely to remain useful for years to come. The National Curriculum (NC) for England is one attempt to select aspects that might be relevant and accessible for primary-aged children, and this book is largely based on that selection. Other authors (Millar and Osborne 1998, Harlen et al. 2015) have emphasised the importance of the ‘big ideas’ in science – concepts such as particle theory, energy, evolution and the formation of the Earth – that unify different branches of science, and are powerful ‘explanatory stories’ in how, as a culture, we currently make sense of the world. We also draw your attention to these big ideas in turn in subsequent chapters and so will sometimes go beyond the prescription of the local NC.

There has been a recent trend towards people being more sceptical about ‘experts’ and having a lack of trust in their pronouncements. It is reasonable to be sceptical about who is defined as, or appoints themselves as an ‘expert’. We should question their sources of funding, their credentials and their vested interests. Indeed, scientific attitudes include questioning what others say. However, when there is a rejection of scientific reasoning it can be due to unrealistic expectations of the kind of answers science can generate. It does not always produce certainties, though findings have sometimes been presented as such in media headlines that announce miracle cures or predict impending doom. If teachers see scientific ideas as indisputable facts, and present them as such, they are misleading children and giving them a false understanding of the nature of science. Weighing evidence, understanding probability and assessing risk are all part of understanding how to make judgements and taking decisions based on scientific evidence. However, teachers also need to understand the weight of evidence that is available to challenge the claims of those who use ‘an expert’ or ‘a scientist’ to bolster an entirely unscientific worldview. A critical understanding of how ideas are based on evidence requires an understanding of the processes of science, such as the use of controlled tests and the implications of sampling procedures. It also requires an understanding of why scientists do the things they do: They might repeat experiments because errors may occur at any time; they sample carefully in an attempt to eliminate bias; they present findings to peers to invite scrutiny and argument. This critical understanding of the nature of science can begin in the primary school as children carry out their own scientific enquiries.

In summary, science is a combination of the big ideas (content knowledge), doing science (procedural knowledge) and understanding the practice of science (epistemic knowledge) (for further discussion see OECD 2016). If ‘real’ science is a heady mix of intellectual and practical activity undertaken by individuals and communities then science in school should reflect this creativity, criticality and sometimes ‘fuzzy’ process rather than pretend science is a linear path or simple recipe for getting answers for questions. Osborne (2015) succinctly summarises teaching science as involving ‘doing, talking, reading, writing and representing’ (p. 18). In this book we present a view of science as a blend of thinking, doing, using skills, developing concepts and adopting attitudes that should remain intertwined during teaching. Below we will explore the theories that lead us to these conclusions.

Learning in science – some theories

In order to make decisions about how to teach we need to think about how children learn. Constructivist theories of learning and, more recently, socio-cultural views of learning have significantly influenced approaches to science education.

Constructivist theories view learning as a process by which an individual actively constructs ideas, rather than as a process of ‘transmission’ in which concepts or ideas are received fully formed and copied in the mind of the learner. Versions of constructivism based on the work of Piaget emphasise the importance of interaction with the physical world and see young children as behaving like scientists – making and testing hypotheses about the environment: for example, ‘This toy will fall to the floor if I drop it.’ In this view of learning science, the practical hands-on experiences become the most important element, and the teacher’s role is to provide a rich environment for the child to explore. If we reflect on our own learning, few people would deny the power of handling objects, feeling and seeing something happen in giving us a depth of understanding. Interactionist theories such as this focus on the interaction ‘between hand and mind’ (Davies and Ward 2003). It is also understood that play is a vital element of learning and different kinds of play contribute to children’s learning in science in different ways. Running around a woodland breaking sticks or throwing different pebbles into a pond could be defined as exploratory or epistemic play that results in knowledge of things. Working out how to make a swing go higher with friends in the playground might be problem-solving play and lead to an understanding of procedures for conducting other experiments. Play that involves inventing a game with rules – e.g. snail racing or hide and seek – can also lead to learning of a scientific nature.

Much of how we teach science today is founded on some ‘classic’ research conducted in the 1980s when science became compulsory for children in primary school. In this research there is a great deal of evidence (Driver et al. 1985, Science Processes and Concept Exploration Project – various authors 1989–98, see the STEM archive for Nuffield Primary Science www.stem.org.uk/elibrary/collection/3059, last accessed 21 February 2017) that when children construct their own ideas and explanations about the world their explanations are different from accepted scientific views. These are sometimes called ‘alternative frameworks’, sometimes less respectfu...