Comparing A-level Physics 2015 Update

UPDATE Feb 2015:

Ned Prideaux has helpfully updated the spreadsheet using the accredited specs.
He has also included boundary data (from the 2014 series) from Ronan McDonald which may be of interest as well.

The document is online as a google doc and is best downloaded into Excel for viewing.


The exam boards have published their draft specifications for the A-level sciences - albeit with huge caveats about them not yet being accredited by Ofqual.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

@Bio_Joe has helpfully put together a comparison for the A-level biology specs, so I've used his basic structure and done the same for the Physics.

AQA, Edexcel and WJEC Eduqas have produced one specification each - although Edexcel still have the spec repeated so that you can teach by concept or context (though the exam is the same however you teach it).  AQA haven't included a context driven approach in their spec, but will be providing a scheme of work to show how you could do this using the published specification.  OCR has produced two specs, including Advancing Physics, whch are examined using different exams.

Co-teaching.
Most of the boards have arranged topics so that the AS and the first few A-level topics are the same.  Interestingly, WJEC Eduqas hasn't, and the topics are in slightly different orders for each year.  I don't think that will be a bit issue, but it will need a bit of thinking about when planning the teaching.

Multiple choice.
Both AQA and Pearson Edexcel have included some multiple choice questions in the assessment model.

Practical work.
All the boards have, as required, specified practical work that must be carried out for the practical endorsement. There is some overlap in the practicals (for example g by freefall and Young (or Young's) modulus appear in all the specs.  AQA and OCR have stopped at the minimum of 12 practical.  This includes 'Research skills' for OCR and allows students to explore a physics topic they are interested in via books and 'tinternet.Edexcel have included 16 practicals as their minimum. 

WJEC Eduqas have specified far more practicals than the other boards (including for example investigation of radioactive decay via a dice analogy or determination of h using LEDs) which would provide a really nice skeleton of a practical teaching scheme.  To be honest, even if you don't choose this spec, it's worth having a look at the practical work they suggest to help you plan as there are some good straightforward ideas in there.

It's quite a big document so I've resorted to a google spreadsheet.  Please feel free to use, with acknowledgement.

What practical assessment?

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a high stakes accountability system will tend to prevent accurate teacher assessment.  Or at least, that is what Ofqual and the exam boards would like us believe.

Having talked to many teachers about controlled assessment (and having been involved in supervising coursework) I think that actually Ofqual and the exams boards are probably correct.  Current controlled assessment measures very little of a student's ability to skillfully carry out practical work, and is overly focussed on one (or at most two) practical experiences.  The time taken to ensure that the whole class completes the appropriate work, with the appropriate supervision eats into the time that could be used to teach content, or do other practical work.  (And involves numerous catch-up sessions after school and during holidays if my child's experience of year 11 science coursework is anything to go by). 

So Ofqual have, at one fell swoop, removed teacher assessed practical work from A-levels from 2015.  Instead, students will be expected to develop 12 practical skill sets through carrying out a minimum of 12 named practicals.  The skills are the same for all exam boards, but they are free to choose their own practicals.  The skills are given in appendix 5c of the subject criteria, but until the draft specifications are published (towards the end of June) we won't know what the practicals are.

Helen Rogerson published a blog outlining her view on the loss of practical assessment and I think that she makes a very good point. 

But...

What if the removal of examined practical assessment means that teachers will stop doing practical work?  If we don't assess practical work, then even though teachers think that it is educationally desirable, they might stop doing it.  Senior leaders might decide that if practical work isn't assessed then why spend large part amounts of money on science equipment and consumables?

This appears to be the view of the Wellcome trust, various university academics and SCORE.  

Again, I can see why they are worried.  It may be that practical science becomes limited to the 12 named practicals in the specs - much like the teaching of English literature appears to be limited to the books named in the new GCSE specs.  Teachers will plan for, and teach, only the practicals that they have to provide evidence of the students carrying out.  On the other hand, anecdotal evidence from teachers who have switched from GCSE sciences to iGCSE sciences have said that the removal of controlled assessment work has led to an increase in the amount of practical work that they do.

Before we can start to discuss the effect of the changes to practical work it would be helpful to know what practical work A-level students currently do.  Michael Gove and Ofqual have referred to reports of Universities complaining that A-levels don’t prepare students well enough for university.  It may be that, in some schools, practical work has already reduced to only that required to complete the controlled assessment part of the course.

In schools like that, it may be that having to do 12 practicals over the space of 2 years might actually be an improvement.

Without data though, we just don’t know.

To that end, I am intending to carry out some preliminary research into what practical work in science (and particularly physics) is currently planned and carried out at A-level in a number of local educational establishments.  I’m hoping that I will be able to revisit the schools as the changes to A-levels are made and see how they are responding to the new structure.

Watch this space!

A long way to go.

For my birthday I was given a voucher for a back massage and a manicure.  So this morning, I went to have both. 

The young woman, Rachel*, who was doing the back massage looked vaguely familiar.  However, as I still live in the town where I taught, there are a large number of young people that I think that about.  Either I’ve taught them, or I saw them around the school.  I’ve tried to stop looking quizzically at older teenagers and twenty-somethings though, because it does get me some funny looks.

Anyway, after my back massage, I had my nails done.  This was a whole new experience.  My nailcare routine consists of trying , and failing, not to bite my nails when they inevitably snag.  (A fact that was quite obvious, and my lack of nail care routine caused a look of horror to flit across Rachel’s face.) 

It turns out that, like having your hair done, having your nails done is quite a social thing where you discuss the inevitable questions such as the weather, weekend plans and what you do for a living.

Rachel and I discussed my job, and my current commute and also my new job which I’ll be starting at the end of June.  The aim of my new role will be to encourage kids to see that doing science is worthwhile and attainable.

Which led onto a discussion about what Rachel did at school (and it turns out that I did know her) and how she had enjoyed science, particularly Biology.   In fact, she said that if she wasn’t a beauty  therapist she would do something with biology.  Then she asked a question that knocked me for six.

‘But,’ she asked, ‘what can you do in science apart from work in a lab or teach?’

Gosh.  We have a long way to go.  Here was a young woman who, to do her job, requires an in depth knowledge of anatomy and physiology, who thought that science was only used in a lab.

I pointed this out to her, and she agreed that she did use a knowledge of biology in her job.

This anecdotal evidence about lack of careers knowledge backs up the findings of a number of reports published in the last 18 months.  Ofsted, ASPIRES (pdf), the PearsonThinktank, and Gatsby have all looked at the quality of careers provision and made recommendations about how it can be improved.

The ASPIRES project at Kings College London give the following recommendations amongst others:

o         earlier intervention – from primary school

o         break the ‘science = scientist’ link

o         embed STEM careers awareness in science lessons

The Gatsby Good Careers guidance report also mentions this link between curriculum and careers and recommend that:

“All teachers should link curriculum learning with careers. STEM subject teachers should highlight the relevance of STEM subjects for a wide range of future career paths.”

When I am running courses, I try to include a session about the importance of science teachers in linking school science to the world of work.  The current state of specialist careers advice is very poor in many schools and if teachers don’t tell kids what they can do with a science qualification then they won’t ever find out. 

I’m not suggesting a hard sell, but if you’re teaching neutralisation reactions, then highlight that these practical skills are needed in the pharmaceutical industry.  If you’re teaching balanced forces, highlight that structural engineers use the same theory to carry out calculations to ensure that buildings don’t fall down.  If you’re teaching about the body in primary school, then you could ask a beauty therapist to come in and talk to the children about their job and how they need to know all about the skeleton and muscles.

If teachers don’t know what jobs are available with a science qualification then these websites might be useful:

Futuremorph

Talent 2030

NHS Careers

National STEM centre careers collection

RCUK Careers in research

National Careers service

So, if you are a teacher highlight links between the curriculum and possible careers.  If you don’t, who will? 

*not her real name.

The future of assessment?

Levels are ‘over-complicated, vague and unambitious’. So the government have scrapped them. 

Unfortunately, up until now, they didn’t really provide any information about what was going to replace them.  And in the absence of that information, many schools have decided to stick with levels for the time being.

But now we have the information.  Or rather, now we have brief descriptions of the models from nine schools that have been chosen to receive money from the assessment innovation fund.  Each of the schools will get up to £10,000 to turn their assessment models into packages which other schools can use.

Those schools chosen are 2 primary, 1 primary/secondary, 4 secondary and 2 special schools. 

When I first read through the descriptions of the assessment packages, I must confess to (a) being a little disappointed and (b) wishing that I had applied with the model that a colleague and I are developing for use in primary.  Many of the packages sound very much like a combination of formative assessment (including self-assessment booklets) and end-of-topic tests.  A couple focus on ‘skills’ and abilities (primary and special school) while others focus on curriculum content or topics (secondary). 

All very reasonable ways of identifying the progress a pupil has made, and reporting it to others but nothing really innovative.

The DfE have also produced a set of core assessment principles.  This states that:

Schools will be expected to demonstrate (with evidence) their assessment of pupils’ progress, to keep parents informed, to enable governors to make judgements about the school’s effectiveness, and to inform Ofsted inspections.

 

So, what can we determine about acceptable assessment models from the short descriptions given in the DfE press release?  

The models include:

·         skills passports

·         ladders of curriculum content to climb

·         formative assessment which allows students to improve and develop their understanding

·         students assigned to levels of mastery / understanding

·         end of topic tests to provide numerical data

Looking at the ideas described, I think that we can probably summarise the models as:

Primary and Special schools: 

Can the kids do stuff? Can they do more stuff than last half-term?

Secondary Schools

Do the kids know stuff? Do the kids know more stuff than they did last half-term? 

So what should you do when replacing levels?  The concept of backward planning (as ably demonstrated by York Science for KS3) seems to be a good starting point.  

• First of all, decide what you want pupils to do or know
• Then, decide what evidence would let you know this
• Finally, plan your teaching experiences (lesson plans, schemes of learning etc).

In your teaching experiences include opportunities for formative assessment and summative assessment.  These assessment opportunities should make use of the evidence of learning that you have previously identified.  Think about what an 'average' student should be able to do/know, or a student who isn't quite there, or one who is well ahead.

The models picked from the Assessment Innovation Fund have aspects of these principles included, but they aren't overly complicated.  The models look different, and will be used in different ways*. However, they all allow assessment (formative and summative) tracking and reporting of progress.   

And there you have it . . .assessment without levels.

 *Which will perhaps be comforting when it comes to explaining your own assessment model to Ofsted.  Though it might make things much harder for Ofsted when it comes to looking at data.

....................................................

More details about each school assessment model are:

Hillyfield Primary Academy, London (primary)	Skills passport in foundation subjects throughout KS1 and KS2.  On demonstrating mastery of a skill, children stamp the skill in the passport. Longer term, school will develop an app that can be used in class by teachers
Hiltingbury Junior school, Hampshire (primary)	‘ladder’ approach to maths, reading and writing. School agrees expectations for each year group, dividing each subject into key skill areas. Children use a ‘ladder booklet’. Steps are divided into areas of exploring, achieving, exceeding
West Exe technology College, Exeter (primary and secondary)	‘ladder’ approach with objectives driven by curriculum content. Each objective is a short, discrete, qualitative and concrete description of what a student is expected to know and be able to do within a specific subject area and topic. Formative and summative (end of topic) assessments are used. Moderated by experienced professionals to ensure consistency.
Westminster Academy, London (Secondary)	Percentage score system to reflect a student’s mastery.  Curriculum divided into discrete topics (about 15 per year) each assessed by in-class quite, homework and end-of-term exam.  Overall score derived from performance for each topic, with an average produced to cover all topics.
Trinity Academy, Halifax (Secondary)	Curriculum broken down into units (categorised as foundation, elementary, intermediate or advanced).  Students complete a test to ascertain their degree of mastery.  Level of success places them at a point within a category: no progress, expected progress, exceptional progress.
Durrington High School, West Sussex (Secondary)	School used KS2 date and other assessments in year 7 (CATs, reading tests, internal tests) to groups students into 4 thresholds based on their prior assessments: excellence, secure, developing and foundation. Formative feedback provided based on day-to-day work. Summative assessments (half termly/termly) are used to  further assess how well students are doing.
Sirius Academy, Hull (Secondary)	Focussed on D&T only. Not clear what is actually involved in the assessment system.
Swiss Cottage School, London (Special School)	Progression planners. Themed around priority areas for individuals with severe learning difficulties and consistent with principles and ethos of the new NC.
Frank Wise school, Banbury (Special School)	Series of assessments that screen the level of development of basic cognitive skills.

One of our key stages is missing!

You may have noticed that there is a new National Curriculum due to start in September.  Throughout the land, primary and secondary teachers are looking at the new curriculum and planning (or perhaps not in academies) on how they will teach the content.

In September, the programmes of study for KS1 – KS3 were published.  When we looked at science, we saw that there were some topics, such as natural selection evolution, which had ‘gone down’ a key stage or two and some topics, such as levers, which hadn’t been around for a long time making a reappearance.  So far so good….

But something is missing.  Where is the programme of study for KS4 science?

What?  You didn’t realise that there WAS a programme of study for KS4 science.  Well, there was and it looked like this: page 39

But where is the new KS4 national curriculum?  And does it matter?  Perhaps it doesn’t – after all, most curriculum planners at KS4 look only at the GCSE (or equivalent) specifications.  These specifications HAVE to cover the KS4 programme of study, so as long as you did the qualifications, you did KS4.

But what about now?  The current national curriculum has been disapplied until September 2014 – quite sensibly to allow for planning and pre-implementation of the new NC.  From September the new NC will be in force, and schools will have to ensure that they cover it.  However, we don’t know what the KS4 NC looks like, or even if the courses that students are taking in September will cover it.

In the heights of the DfE, consultations about the subject criteria for GCSE sciences are being carried out.  These are being developed with the writing of specifications in mind.  I presume that, once the subject criteria are finalised, then they will be adopted as the new KS4 national curriculum for science, and that they will come into effect (with the rest of the curriculum) from September 2014.

Only, the new GCSEs won’t start until 2016, and the old GCSEs are unlikely to cover the full requirements of the NC (at least, not if they are anything like the draft subject criteria).

So what should schools do?  Fail to fulfil their statutory duty to teach the National curriculum or teach a curriculum that doesn’t quite match the GCSE specification?

And what is DfE going to do about it?

Teach them well...

Our visit to CERN proper started in a crowded lecture room.  As well as the 51 UK teachers, there were around 40 Israeli students and their teachers.  Israel has just become a full member state of CERN, and these students were the first visitors since that event.  Over the three days, it was fascinating to watch these young people sit through some fairly tricky lectures on cosmology, the Higgs Boson and medical applications of particle physics amongst others.  And not only did they sit through the lectures, they listened and asked intelligent questions at the end.

Each year CERN hosts tens of thousands of visitors.  Amongst these are teachers from all the member states of CERN, as well as other friendly states.  The teacher programmes typically last a week (our UK programme is a little shorter than most), and is hosted where possible by a researcher from the visiting teacher’s home country. 

The education and visits programme is a massive endeavour for CERN, and so it is reasonable to ask ‘Why?’.  What is the benefit to CERN of inviting teachers and others to wander round the facilities, taking photos, getting in the way and filling the restaurant?

Indeed, one could also ask why the National Science Learning Centre, and STFC (who provide financial support for our study visits) take teachers to CERN.

The answer, said in a slightly misty eyed way way, is that it is for the kids.  We, in the words of a song, believe that children are our future.  

The future?

More prosaically, without kids taking STEM subjects, there won’t be big science and technology undertakings in the future.  Somewhere like CERN is the work of a LOT of people – people who studied sciences, engineering, architecture, and other STEM subjects.  And at some point, those people were in all likelihood taught science by enthusiastic teachers who made them think that science was a subject worth studying.

So CERN (and NSLC) want to work with the teachers because they are the multipliers.  If a single student, such as one of our Israeli companions, comes to CERN then that is one person who will (in all probability) be enthused about science.  However, if one teacher comes, then that teacher will go back into school or college with a renewed interest and, dare I say it, excitement about science.  One teacher may teach 200 to 300 students each year.  As the teacher says ‘when I was in CERN….’ and shares the excitement of standing just in front of a 15m wide particle detector 100m below the French countryside, then their interest can be contagious and spread to some of their students.  So one person’s visit will hopefully inspires classrooms full of students.

Up close and personal with a beam pipe

And it’s not just seeing the scale of the undertaking.  The guides who show the teachers round are often researchers, who volunteer to show people round CERN.  Meeting the researchers, chatting to them and asking about how they ended up working in CERN, provides real examples to teachers of possible career paths that their own students might take.  Career paths which the (non-specialist) science teacher might not have realised were possible.

Konrad, explaining why there is more than one particle accelerator at CERN

So to CERN, the cost and disruption, of hosting teacher programmes is worth it.  In fact, it is part of their core mission to the future.