Abstract
The Education Group Conference, Manchester, 1-3 April 1996
The 1996 Annual Conference of the Institute of Physics Education Group was dedicated to the IoP commitment to producing a new, exciting post-16 physics course - including an A-level which it hopes will 'be offered by more than half of the examining boards existing at that time'. Interestingly enough, the first lecture of the Conference was given by Carolyn Swain of SCAA, who summarized the recommendations of the Dearing Report (see the Editorial in the May issue) - one of which is a proposed reduction in the number of both boards and syllabuses at this level. It is quite hard to keep up.
In spite of any possible future tectonic events from the fault-prone political scene, the rest of the conference provided its usual mix of the inspirational and the banal, the practical and the vague, the evangelical and the sceptical, in a well-structured framework. The general pattern of the three-day event is a series of three short talks in a session followed or interrupted by discussion (depending on how agitated the audience gets). There were 61 delegates from schools, colleges and universities.
In the first session, Setting the Scene, Carolyn Swain's résumé of the Dearing Report was clear and accurate, although the main message coming through was of an interesting set of proposals that have not been very well thought through, and which will need more work (and consultation) if they are not to fail in their declared aim of increasing the number and competence of post-16 students of science and mathematics.
Alan Cottey of the University of East Anglia gave a rather unexciting view of 'Physics for a Sustained Future', covering too wide a cultural-ecological canvas and with little practical advice on how physics educators could or should cope with preparing students for the next century. Bryan Chapman is the IoP curriculum officer charged with setting the groundwork for its self-given task of producing a new curriculum. People began to sit up and take notice. He outlined the task of the conference and argued for a more modern view of physics to be at the core of the curriculum - based on a quantum model.
After dinner at our religiously spartan St Gabriel's Hall venue we heard the Keynote Address from Robin Millar of York University. Robin Millar is editor of the popular Physics Review and York is the home of the Salters' projects - the latest of which is to be an A-level physics course. Dr Millar covered the field impressively in a talk ranging from what 13-year-olds think about why things don't keep on getting hotter when you heat them to balancing what we might like to have in a physics course with what time, space, energy and the customers can actually cope with. See this journal for more about this . . .
The second day (phew!) began with a possibly over-conceptualized talk on Quality and Education by Jane Seddon of the Regional Staff College, which didn't go down too well with the troops. This was a pity: I feel the education system could learn a great deal from a well-targeted programme of quality control, as opposed to the rather brutal and uninformative quality audit known as the external examination system.
There was good detail from Susan Molyneux (Bristol University) about her research into mathematics for physics versus mathematics in physics and Bryan Chapman must look forward to useful advice from this kind of work. Martin Monk (King's College London) made a good case for neatly fitting historical evidence into the popular constructivist model of the cognitive development of scientific ideas by students, if only just now and again. He also introduced us to the concept of Sc0, to be added to Sc's 1, 2, 3 and 4. So that's something else to worry about.
The session on Innovative Practice included contributions from Jack Alvarez (Haberdashers' Aske's) and Francesca Wheeler (Withington Girls') who described how they increased motivation by involving students in workshops, hands-on activities, displays and (in Withington) significant atmospheric research. Phil Latchem (Glossopdale Community College) brought us down to earth with his experience of demotivated 11-year-olds arriving already convinced of the difficulty of physics, and how this (mis)conception is being tackled by sending older students as missionaries into local primary schools. Proof that physics is harder than ALL other subjects at A-level was produced in a careful analysis by Peter Rowlands (De la Salle College) of A-level results using ALIS data. The effect of this has been to introduce a bias into the examination system which is producing even more unfairness to the weaker borderline candidates than the rather more publicized effect on top students, for whom university entrance tutors can make exceptions.
Jonathan Osborne (King's College London) pleaded for a reappraisal of what constitutes a good learning activity in physics. Boring old practical work is not enough - there is too much and it's a singularly inefficient method of learning ideas. Discussion ensued about how much is too much, but there was general agreement that the range of activities used with and skills expected of students is currently too limited.
The Particular Suggestions session closed the second day with Peter Hughes (Kingsway College) arguing for Environmental Physics and Percy Seymour (University of Plymouth) arguing for Astronomy as vehicles for delivering or enhancing post-16 physics. But then there's Medical Physics, Particle Physics, Materials Physics and even Physics Physics. The choices exist - should they continue? There are strong arguments for flexibility, and for a compulsory (and intelligent) core.
The final session on Wednesday morning ( Satisfying everybody) began with a lively and well-presented talk by David Morland and Helen Colbeck (King Edward VI School, Southampton) on the benefits and successes of the Nuffield Advanced Physics Course, the message being that the Nuffield Project still provides a model for curriculum development - and is still innovative in its assessment scheme. The message was delivered with such evangelical enthusiasm that only the bravest dared to raise a sceptical or questioning note.
Industry was represented by Daniel McCaughan (Chief Scientist, Nortel Technology - an international firm with units in Ireland and UK), who amazed the audience by declaring that currently physicists in industry were better paid than solicitors, doctors, vets (and of course teachers and lecturers). When the buzz of excitement had died down he went on to emphasize the need for good scientists in the kind of high-tech industry that would be the industrial paradigm (have to get it in somewhere) for the next century, and that teaching and learning would (or should) be equally affected by the kind of radical change that was transforming industry and communications. His own firm was so committed to this view that its engineers were expected to become involved, under a full-time education liaison officer, with enthusing children about science in local schools, especially primary schools. The firm spent a large fraction of its money on research - almost as much as the UK Government spends, in fact, as well as on continuous training of its workforce at all levels. The speaker was scathing about the UK's backward looking approach to science and education in general.
The session ended with a set of charmingly low-key vignettes by freelance author David Sang of how real children responded to odd bits of science teaching, a kind of constructivism with a human face, reminding us of what it is really all about.
I should mention both the warm reception and abundant wine given to delegates at the Town Hall by the Lord Mayor of Manchester (Councillor Joyce Keller), and the splendid Conference Dinner provided by St Gabriel's Hall. Alun Jones (Chief Executive, IoP) was the guest of honour and pledged the Institute's support for innovative curriculum development as a main priority. He was not well pleased by the Dearing recommendations for post-16 education in general and physics in particular.
There will be more about all this, with articles written by several of the speakers at the conference in the September issue of this journal, planned to be a special issue on physics in the school curriculum. I hope that that issue will expand on the rather too brief (in my opinion) 20 minute talks of the conference, and will also include one vital theme omitted from it - assessment, the most overcontrolled, overexpensive and unsmart aspect of the British educational system.
Ken Dobson