There's no cynicism about our new science course

Past teaching has failed to show pupils how we know what we know. Now things are changing, say Jonathan Osborne and Robin Millar
  • The Guardian,
  • Jump to comments ()
Your article on the new GCSE science course, 21st Century Science, misrepresents the research evidence (New science GCSEs foster cynicism among pupils, says study, March 1). Nowhere does the word "cynicism" appear in any of the evaluation reports. It would be much more accurate to say that the course aims to encourage students to look more critically at some of the claims made about the applications of science. It does this by educating them about science and its practices as well as its content.

The "critics of the new GCSEs" quoted in the article seem wedded to approaches rooted in the past that have never, in Britain or anywhere else, engaged the majority of students with science. For these critics, the primary purpose of science education is to provide a foundation for more advanced study - which less than 10% of those who pass GCSE science currently opt to do. Most need an understanding of science, but not this kind of understanding.

School science has consistently failed to give its students any acceptable knowledge of how we know what we know, and how to begin to assess the claims which science advances. In short, how science works. This has been bad for science and bad for its students. Bad for science because it results in a generation of students who have only a narrow and flawed understanding of what scientists do; and bad for its students because it offers little to engage the interest of the overwhelming majority.

One of the results is that fewer students are opting to continue studying science. By trying to teach the same sort of science to all, we have ended up with an unhappy compromise that neither stimulates those with a strong interest in science as a career, nor provides students with the level of understanding and confidence that every citizen needs. The new curriculum is an attempt to address this problem.

It is also wrong to say that this course splits the pupils into "two groups; those who are likely to study science further and those who are not". The argument made for this course has always been that all students need a science education to help with their daily lives. Students who want to study in depth can then take a second GCSE which, our evaluation shows, leaves them with an understanding of science as good as those who've done the double-science GCSE that schools already teach.

Moreover, the evaluation of this new course shows that it has at least reversed the demise of school science, with students indicating that they find it more relevant, and more students (especially when applied and vocational post-16 science courses are included) saying that they will study science beyond GCSE.

The scientific endeavour is one of the greatest achievements of Western society. Furthermore, science is at the heart of many of the political and moral dilemmas of the coming century. Surely students deserve an education which shows them why science matters?

· Jonathan Osborne is chair of science education at King's College London. Robin Millar is professor of science education at the University of York

Latest posts

Today's best video

Today in pictures