Hello all,
I've started a thread at JREF on this topic, but it's not generating much interest. Thought I'd try you chaps, who have more of a personal investment in UK education standards.
Basically, Edexcel have introduced homoeopathy to their new GCSE Chemistry course. It comes under the "chemical structures" section in between covalent bonding and movement of electrons in metals.
The basic premise is that "chemical-based therapies" have to be rigorously tested, using controls, but that homoeopathy isn't because it has no side effects. They then go on to explain that scientists don't accept the effectiveness of homoepathy because the evidence is weak, and that it is contrary to established scientific principles.
Here is a link to the syllabus online:
http://360science.edexcel.org.uk/home/specifications/
Here is a selection of quotes:
Later on, in "Learning outcomes"Edexcel Guidance for students
Have you ever wondered...
...Do the essential oils that supermarkets spray into the air put you in a positive mood?
Why do people think crystals have mysterious healing properties?
If homeopathy works, why don't scientists believe it?
People have been wearing copper and magnetic bracelets for 2000 years, but do they work?
Now, my position is that this is either a badly mishandled attempt to teach critical thinking (in an inappropriate part of the syllabus), or a deliberate attempt to wedge homoeopathy into the syllabus, to "teach the controversy". Either way, I think it should come out.describe how ideas, such as the effectiveness of homeopathic medicine, are difficult for scientists to accept when they conflict with established theories
Thoughts?
Obviously the key to it is the purpose behind it.
If it's done to assess these things from a scientific point of view (Chemistry) then it is the sort of thing that I would like to see introduced.
Looking at the document however, it looks as if they're accepting the effectiveness of homeopathy as given and asking why it isn't accepted by conventional science.
The trouble with teaching 'controversy' is that both sides of the argument are given equal weight or merit. In science however, we're allowed to reach a conclusion.
Is how ineffective treatments appear to work a part of a Chemistry syllabus? If not then this could simply teach kids that there are ways other than science of acquiring knowledge. :-\
.
Agreed, to an extent. I think some lessons on the history and philosophy of science would be a good thing. Why the scientific method is powerful and successful, that sort of thing. That's where discussions of homoeopathy, ID etc. would be appropriate.Originally Posted by John Jackson
Nail hit soundly on head.Is how ineffective treatments appear to work a part of a Chemistry syllabus? If not then this could simply teach kids that there are ways other than science of acquiring knowledge. :-\
This topic is crowbarred into a section on chemical structure! What have clinical trials got to do with chemical structure? Very little, I would say. That's why it will be a source of confusion, and that's why I'm suspicious that the confusion may be deliberate... >:(
Badly worded, in the wrong part of the curriculum, possibly even in entirely the wrong subject. It should say, "Why do people believe that homeopathy works, if there is no scientific evidence supporting it?" and "Why do scientists not accept that homeopathy is an effective treatment, even though many people believe that it works?"
Edexcel have a reputation for being crap in many areas, fortunately I never had to teach one of their syllabuses.
Is there any way of finding out which schools are teaching this syllabus? Perhaps we could send their chemistry departments some information...
Hello,
This is my very first message.
I teach 'A' level chemistry, biology and mathematics. I stopped teaching G.C.S.E. science because it was too basic and relied too much on recall with almost no reasoning. In fact, the majority of my current 'A' level students who have A* or A in G.C.S.E. sciences and mathematics often have no reasoning ability and are often naturally unscientifically minded.
The majority believe in miracles (my students are largely Asian and most believe that statues drink milk) and some believe in creation and homeopathy (their understanding of evolution and moles is almost non-existent even though they have A*s at G.C.S.E.).
The wording of the specification does imply an acceptance of homeopathy which can have only a deleterious effect on science education. These students are the doctors, dentists and pharmacists of the future and so I try and instill in them the scientific method.
If you want to have information on the lowering of standards at 'A' level then try my site:
http://members.aol.com/sciencestandards/
It's not flashy but it's full of facts.
The Boffin
Hello Boffin and welcome.
I've long suspected that A levels are easier than they were mainly because everyone seems to pass them.
I'll have a read of your articles.
I think that's all a result of the complete lack of critical thinking skills in general education. OK there's an optional A level course but I think it should be introduced much earlier and at a much easier level.In fact, the majority of my current 'A' level students who have A* or A in G.C.S.E. sciences and mathematics often have no reasoning ability and are often naturally unscientifically minded.
The A level critical thinking course is an A level that is actually quite difficult!
I'm going to write some introductory critical thinking lessons for use on the website. They will be unofficial, nothing to do with the education system, but will at least be something for people who wish to get a grasp of what it's all about.
.
There was a story on the front page of The Times on 23rd August headlined "students told to ditch 'soft option' A levels": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...324825,00.html
An "analysis" story on page 2 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...324890,00.html) is accompanied by the list, which doesn't seem to be on the website.LEADING universities are warning teenagers that they will not gain admission if they study “soft” A levels in the sixth form.
The universities are insisting that pupils take traditional subjects if they want to be considered for degree courses. Those applying with A levels in subjects such as media studies or health and social care would rule themselves out.
Up to one in six students took A levels this summer in at least one of 20 subjects listed by Cambridge as “less effective preparation” for entry. In what will come as a surprise to some schools and students, the list includes business studies, information and communication studies, and design and technology.
Critical thinking is one of the subjects listed.
In fact, it's worse than I thought!
I've found the list on this page of Cambridge's site.
Critical thinking isn't on the list of subjects only acceptable (as a third A level) if two "traditional" subjects have been taken.But then there's a note:The list below details the A level subjects that provide a less effective preparation for our courses. To be a realistic applicant, a student will normally need to be offering two traditional academic subjects (ie two subjects not on this list). For example, Mathematics, History and Business Studies would be an acceptable combination of subjects for a number of our courses.
...
A levels
Accounting
Art and Design (see also Architecture requirements)
Business Studies
Communication Studies
Dance
Design and Technology (see also Engineering requirements)
Drama/Theatre Studies
Film Studies
Health and Social Care
Home Economics
Information and Communication Technology
Leisure Studies
Media Studies
Music Technology
Performance Studies
Performing Arts
Photography
Physical Education
Sports Studies
Travel and TourismIt's even less acceptable!Please note:
General Studies and Critical Thinking A levels will only be considered as fourth A level subjects and will not therefore be accepted as part of a conditional offer.
I've never heard of a "Critical thinking" A level. What does the course involve? It seems strange that a concept, or way of thinking, could constitute two years of study (even though one hopes for a lifetime of practice).
With regards to standards in education, I'm sure they are dropping. For a long time I was open to the idea that "less topics in more detail" was a feasible counter to the claim, but not any longer. I took my A levels 14 years ago and it was starting then (I used the same textbook as my older brother, but crossed out 3 chapters which "you won't be tested on any more"). The whole GCSE chemistry homeopathy issue is bad enough (but could only be as sinister as pandering to fashion), but there seems to be a drive to eliminate moles from GCSE combined science altogether. I know molarity is a notoriously difficult subject to teach and understand, but it as absolutely essential to an adequate understanding of chemistry and biology.
Where has this defeatist attitude come from?
"Oh, that's a bit too hard for them - they'll mostly fail. I know, let's try using slang to make it sound cool, and stick in some stuff that's been on the news lately. Kids don't want to really try."
I was arguing about this on the JREF forum. As I see it, the critical thinking A-level is basically the same as general studies, which requires no work or lessons and everyone passes, and yet somehow people think it will be considered the same as a an A-level that (supposedly) takes two years of hard work. The point I argued at JREF was that critical thinking can only be taught as part of scientifc study, it can't be taught on its own because, obviously, yuo need something to think about critically. Clearly students need to be taught how to think, but this needs to be done throughout their education and not just tacked on at the end with no connection to anything else.
There was an exerpt from a paper in The Grauniad a couple of months ago. I think I've still got it; I'll look it out when I get home.
I don't see how you can teach chemistry without this concept.
Well apparently they do, because I've no idea what you're talking about. I've been through 2 threads wondering how the tiny creatures relate to chemistry.* And I LIKED chemistry at school. I don't think I learned much though. I learned most of the science I know at University. I did a first-year course called the Universe as an Art. It covered special and general relativity, a little astronomy, nuclear physics and quantum physics, all without the maths. I learned sooo much on that course and was utterly fascinated by it. But I expect most of it is stuff I should have known about way way before that...Michelson Morley, Niels Bohr...hell, even the composition of stars- I left school (in 1995) knowing nothing about them at all.
I would argue that that kind of teaching is what we need more of. I have an arts brain. Despite a sound grasp of the concepts of addition, subtraction, division and multiplication, numbers make me go funny. I ain't kidding- just the other day I wrote £580 as £58. I can't work out my annual leave allowance correctly- I'll subtract 5 days from 20 and get 17 for no apparent reason (except maybe wishful thinking??). I think a test for dyscalculia might be wise. Anyway, this doesn't mean that I must be ignorant about science the rest of my life- I grasp the concepts fine- they needed to teach at school the way Lancaster University's science departments teach humanities undergraduates. IMHO.
*I have now Googled, btw.
Indeed, you can teach chemistry to people without involving the concept of moles, but not if you want any of them to go on and become research chemists.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks