Watching the pendulum swing( continued)
ARTICLES
Watching the pendulum swing( continued)
difference. For example, research around the previous change showed that though students understanding of key concepts remained the same, the students from the current syllabus actually demonstrated superior understanding of the nature of physics knowledge when compared to students studying the pre-2001 syllabus [ 10 ]. Another piece of research examining the use of technology in teaching and learning in the HSC sciences showed that the use of technology in physics resulted in improved HSC scores, compared to both other science subjects and groups without technologies. Since the physics syllabus recommended or even mandated various technology use, including simulations, and the biology syllabus, for example, does not, it is hypothesised that the effect was based on the explicit presence of these requirements in the syllabus [ 11 ].
It has been widely speculated that there will be several knock on effects of the current change. Firstly, with the increase in mathematical rigour, it has been predicted that numbers studying HSC physics could markedly decrease [ 12 ]. Abrahams’ work on HSC physics persistence shows that one of the key factors is the perception of performance; that is, students that perceive a topic to be one in which they will not perform well are more likely to not continue in physics [ 13 ]. The new Physics syllabus, has, in Year 11, all three of topics, mechanics, waves and electricity, that are considered the least likely to result in perceptions of better performance( and hence persistence in the subject).
On the other hand, it has also been anecdotally suggested that the new rigorous syllabus will attract back more able students who currently opt for the humanities to play the‘ ATAR( Australian Tertiary Admission Rank) game’( selecting subjects to maximise final marks, an issue that is promised to be rectified in the reforms). Students are most likely to be gained at private and selective schools( with a higher concentration of students with stronger academic ability) and lost from regional, remote and low socioeconomic schools. These schools are already suffering from staffing difficulties and small physics class sizes, meaning that even if a student is capable of studying the subject, they may not be able to. Beyond the issues this raises for participation in the future workforce, this does nothing for inclusivity in a subject which is already known to struggle to attract minorities [ 14 ].
The changes offer substantial challenges for teachers. The new content, e. g. thermodynamics, will be new to many physics teachers, even experienced teachers. However, unlike the introduction of the new K-10 Australian Curriculum, there is no additional funding for the roll out of the new HSC syllabuses. Physics teachers need to be taught the new content and associated experiments in an already time-restricted environment [ 15 ]. Recalling our earlier reporting of the state of teacher qualification and shortages, where over 20 % of physics teachers are teaching out of specialism i. e. are not physics-trained, and considering nearly half of all physics teachers retiring over the next 10-15 years [ 16 ], this is a serious concern.
Going a little deeper
Though the syllabus will have some tangible and possibly concerning consequences, the teaching of physics is actually notoriously quite resistant to curricula changes. Carlone explains that the‘ prototypical’ view of physic as being‘ difficult, hierarchical, objective’ is maintained and reproduced despite policy changes, and that this characterisation undermines inclusivity [ 17 ]. Physics is considered the‘ prototypical’ science both from within, where it is referred to as the most‘ fundamental’ [ 18 ] but also from the outside, where it is considered‘ pure’ [ 19 ],‘ abstract’ [ 20 ] and‘ hierarchical’ [ 21 ]. So despite calls for broader, contextualised ways of teaching physics, a certain rigidity in what physics is and is not seems to persist. This rigid view quite possibly underlies the decades of unsuccessful reform of physics education and is perhaps why physics is suffering particularly badly in the current crisis.
It is interesting to uncover these tensions over the decades. A fascinating excerpt from an early 20th Century policy discussion piece, for example, demonstrates that even at that point in history, the‘ new’ approach to teaching physics was one that:
“ emphasise( d)“ the development of habits of scientific thought” and“ the method by which science obtains its results” rather than“ more or less scattered facts and theories” taught in such a way that they could only be committed to memory.”( quoted on p. 53 in [ 9 ])
Exam questions from The University of Sydney( Figure 2), a university known for its excellent reputation in the sciences, show that‘ essays’ and the history of physics were considered to be extremely important as far back as 1888.
In 2001, the syllabus change heralded a new era of incorporating the nature and history of science after decades of work and substantial robust research in the local context [ 22, 23 ]. However, in the wake of the new syllabus, the old has been branded‘ soft’, lacking in substance, weighed down by unnecessary history and sociology and, very unfortunately,‘ feminine’ [ 24 ]. Instead, the new syllabus signals a‘ return to basics’, increased rigour and back to form [ 1 ].
Why are the holistic, contextualised, humanistic and social qualities placed in opposition to rigour and mathematics? And why are these currently considered‘ bad’ and‘ good’, respectively?
22 SCIENCE EDUCATIONAL NEWS VOL 67 NO 1