New Junior Cycle Science

r93kaey5p2izun

So what does everyone think now that the "specification" has been published and the first in-service courses have started? I'm just so concerned for where we are heading with this.

I can certainly see the positives. I like the emphasis on the Nature of Science with more importance placed explicitly on the scientific method and the importance of critically analysing data. I think Earth and Space will be of great interest to the students and was something they often asked about anyway in my experience. I'm happy enough with a common course as I feel it's been the reality in mixed ability classes for the most part anyway.

But there are so many problems! First, the cut in time allocation. Then the 90% terminal exam. Talk about a step backwards. I totally disagree with a common level assessment too - an unrealistic challenge for weaker students given the paltry CA marks, or an inevitable dumbing down if it is to be truly accessible for all. If the former then I see even more students not doing science at all. I mean the CA worth 10% is a writing task! And practical investigation, instead of becoming a key element, is consigned to a classroom based assessment which will be dismissed as worthless by students and parents.

There are serious gaps in the learning outcomes - and while we are fobbed off about the flexibility we will have to cover any such areas, the reality is there won't be time with a reduced allocation, the desired increase in inquiry based learning and the CBAs and assessment task to be completed. I think practical work is at risk of suffering without explicit emphasis on it. It's all so vague and will require so much "unpacking" and clarification. And no specific time being made available for collaborative planning until next year when it will already be too late.

2011abc

Link please ? Original draft spec was brutal .More about number of moons of Uranus than bones in our skeletons .Whats the point in 10% CA ?! And all on reduced hours .The dumbing down continues apace.

r93kaey5p2izun

http:// http://www.curriculumonline.ie/Junior-cycle/Junior-Cycle-Subjects/Science-(1)

I can't find a direct link on phone but scroll down and click "Science Specification PDF". Still no skeleton, muscles, nervous system, senses, urinary system. Probably similar gaps in physics and chemistry.

2011abc

Reduction in emphasis on practical work a joke .

RealJohn

I should preface this by saying that I haven't done the inservice yet (doing it the Tuesday after we're back I think) and I haven't read anything on it lately so this post is based entirely on what's been said here.

Rhys Scrawny Passenger wrote: »

But there are so many problems! .... Then the 90% terminal exam. Talk about a step backwards.

In theory, you're not wrong but in practice, you're utterly, utterly wrong. The current course, with 35% of the final mark going on practical work, is a complete joke. It's almost impossible to fail. 10% just for doing the practicals? Ridiculous. The practicals are assessed in the exam paper anyway so either that should stop (pretty impractical) or there should be no extra marks for doing them. You might as well just give them marks for attendance (and in fact, that would probably be better).
Then 25% for CWB which is, based on the many, many pieces of CWB I've marked over the years, is done almost entirely by the teachers? Again, utterly pointless. At least they've moved back to making the investigations more accessible to third year students but the damage has already been done and you still see that almost every coursework booklet from a given class (and usually, from a given school) is virtually identical, both in content and by extension, in marks gained. The only significant outliers are the ones that haven't been finished in the vast majority of cases.

No, it would be nice to see more marks going on practical work but the only way I can see that actually working while maintaining the integrity of the exam is by putting on practical exams - practical work observed and evaluated by a teacher coming in from outside, like in the oral exams and (I believe) the home economics practical exam.

Rhys Scrawny Passenger wrote: »

I totally disagree with a common level assessment too - an unrealistic challenge for weaker students given the paltry CA marks, or an inevitable dumbing down if it is to be truly accessible for all.

I don't know about this. In some respects, I like the idea of a common course. Also, given the glaring flaws in the current system as I've already highlighted, in practice we already have a common course anyway, in that it's almost impossible to fail the HL exam unless the student makes no effort whatsoever for the CW A and B so I very rarely allow students to take the OL exam anyway (and I'm not teaching in a school full of high achievers).
I think it would be no harm to have a common course with a common exam designed to be accessible to the weakest students while still affording the strongest students a chance to display their knowledge. I'm not one of these people who's against the concept of failure but I see no harm in a system which allows us to tell students/parents what level of ability a child has rather than simply telling them that they're either good enough or they're a failure. They'll fail at leaving cert. Let them be evaluated during the junior cycle.

Rhys Scrawny Passenger wrote: »

If the former then I see even more students not doing science at all.

The problem here is that science is not a compulsory subject. It should be. This is probably something we should be mentioning to our local politicians when they call to our doors over the next two weeks.

Inspector Coptoor

I agree with John.

The course assessment as it stands at HL is designed to allow as many candidates as possible to pass, while keeping the numbers of As down and a huge glut of B's and C'a in the middle of the curve.

The biggest travesty in the new syllabus is the reduction in contact time from 240 hours to 200 hours, bringing a course that was already very wide but narrow, to a course that is not as wise but equally narrow.
The way to achieve the reduced syllabus was to cut topics out entirely instead of treating any current topic in an even more shallow way.

The whole thing is a mess.

Science and/or Home Ec should be compulsory at Junior Cert.
The course shouldn't just be about learning skills, it should be about developing an interest in the world around us through a scientific lens.
Most students leave JC science with a very limited knowledge of ways to apply what they learned to everyday life and that's why/where students are being turned off science in the first place.

evolving_doors

I agree with realjohn about a practical exam for Science in JC. But lets be honest, they are trying to do away with outside dept. examiners for the JC subjects because of the cost. just look at the refusal to take on JC language examining... as long as teachers do it off their own bat then the dept are happy to count it in the results as a defacto continuous assessment.

doc_17

96% of students study science so I'd say making an issue of the 4% that don't study it would be a waste of time when those weasels come around. I'll be hitting with other education issues.

r93kaey5p2izun

I understand what you mean about the state of Coursework B at the moment, but I still think it's a retrograde step to have a 90% written exam and a 10% written task. Absolutely a practical exam would be the ideal, but it was never going to happen in this money saving exercise.

As I said, I agree with the common course. And if the exam in accessible without being dumbed down then that will be great - I'm afraid I don't have much faith in the SEC to deliver that though, and feel it will either be out of reach for many or dumbed down.

I also understand the perspective that the current system increases the HL pass rate while reducing the As. But from my point of view, with most of my students struggling at OL, I'm afraid I just see science becoming something that my school will start to move away from. Science is not optional in my school (though neither is it made available to all) but I think it will be management that will see it as pointless if the students can't achieve in it.

Corkgirl18

Just wondering if people have picked textbooks to use for the upcoming year? We have 7 different ones in school, narrowed down to 3 I think.

WWMRD

Corkgirl18 wrote: »

Just wondering if people have picked textbooks to use for the upcoming year? We have 7 different ones in school, narrowed down to 3 I think.

We went through them all individually and then as a department. Some were WAY too complicated with keys and codes all over the place which would lead to distraction. Some were just too far ahead with content for JC (we believed for our level students who attend the school or will attend in sept)

We went through a pros and cons list for each and in the end decided with the Mentor one 'The Nature of Science'. We felt the layout was perfect, questions and content was good based on learning outcomes for JC Science.

Great to have a load of resources though from the other books and workbooks!!!

doc_17

Did anyone else feel that the inservice was a complete waste of time as well? Left it with nothing.