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