This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 08 October 2014, At: 07:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Melbourne Studies in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcse19

Science for public understanding: Developing a newcourse for 16–18 year old studentsRobin Millar aa Department of Educational Studies , University of York , Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UKPublished online: 26 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Robin Millar (2000) Science for public understanding: Developing a new course for 16–18 year old students,Melbourne Studies in Education, 41:2, 201-214, DOI: 10.1080/17508480009556372

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508480009556372

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Science for Public Understanding: Developing a NewCourse for 16-18 Year Old Students

Robin Millar

In many countries, there is concern that the school science curriculum fails to fire theimagination of many young people and stimulate a lifelong interest in science. Theproportion who choose to continue the study of science, particularly physical science,beyond the point where it ceases to be a compulsory component of the curriculum isat best steady, in many countries falling. Of course for some of the pupils who becomedisaffected with science, this is just a reflection of their wider loss of interest in schoolsubjects in general. Others are interested in ideas and in book learning but tell us thatschool science is a 'turn off, crammed with abstract and (so far as they can see) irrelevantfacts, taught in lessons that give them little opportunity to express and share their ownideas and opinions.1 Teachers and textbooks convey to them the strong sense thatthere is a 'right answer', against which their own views appear of little value. Manyyoung people in this group will end up in influential jobs in business or the professions.If we are to improve public understanding of science in the future, this is clearly agroup that we have to attract and persuade.

In this chapter I am going to describe the development of a new science course,called 'Science for Public Understanding' (5PU)2 for 16-18 year old pupils in England.I will try, however, to go beyond description and explain the reasons for some of thechoices that are embedded in it. These aspects of a new development are often lost (orhidden) and the reader is left to speculate as to why the developers chose to do Xrather than Y, to include P and leave out Q, and so on. It is impossible to provide anaccount of all of these decisions, but I will try to explain the stages of the developmentand indicate some of the reasons for the main choices. First, however, it is necessary tooudine briefly the current context of science curriculum development in England, inorder to explain where SPU fits in.

The Curriculum Context in England

In 1989 the first-ever National Curriculum was introduced in England and Wales. It

1. J. Osbornc and S. Collins, Pupils' and Parents' Views of the School Science Curriculum, ResearchReport, London, 1999.

2. AQA (Assessment and Qualifications Alliance), Advanced Subsidiary Subject Specification: Sciencefor Public Understanding, Manchester, 2000. (Available from: http://www.aqa.org.uk/)

201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Robin Millar

specified the subjects to be taught to all children between the ages of 5 and 16, andoutlined programmes of study and targets for attainment in each subject. It has sincebeen revised three times (in 1991, 1995 and 2000), to address perceived problemswith the previous version or simply to revise and update it.3 Science is one of threecore subjects (the others are English and Mathematics), all pupils must study themthroughout the whole 5-16 period, and their progress is monitored by nationalassessments at ages 11, 14 and 16 (the last of these taking the form of the GCSE(General Certificate of Secondary Education) examination).

In contrast to this, the curriculum in England for students over 16 has traditionallyallowed complete freedom of choice of subject. Those following an academicprogramme normally take 3 or 4 subjects at Advanced level (A-level) over two years.This high degree of specialisation and freedom of choice, compared with most othercountries, is a perennial topic of debate in English education. Typically governmentsdesire a broader curriculum but are afraid of the political backlash if they are perceivedas diluting the A—level 'gold standard'. They are also wary of the costs of teachingmore subjects to 16-18 year olds (and hence of increasing their hours of class time andthe numbers of teachers required). Although there is freedom of choice of subject, thegovernment has gradually assumed more control over the content of A—level syllabusesin each subject, by publishing 'subject cores' specifying the content that mustbe includedin any course offered for a particular subject at A—level.4

One device that has been tried in the past to broaden the post—16 courses inEngland is to introduce syllabuses at an intermediate level between GCSE and A-level. In 1996, a review led by Sir Ron Dearing proposed replacing the AdvancedSupplementary level (AS-level) courses (which were of the same depth as A-level butonly half the extent) with Advanced Subsidiary levels (still called AS-level) whichwould be essentially the first year of a two year A—level course.5 This would allowstudents to begin their post-16 programme with, say, five AS—levels—and then choosethree of these to continue to A—level. They could obtain an AS-level qualification inthe two that they took for just one year, which would count towards their points foruniversity entry.

3. For the current version, see QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority), The NationalCurriculum for England. Science, London, 2000 (Available from: http://www.nc.uk.net)

4. QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority), Subject Cores for A- and AS—level, London,1999. (Available from http://www.qca.org)

5. DfEE/WO/DENI (Department for Education and Employment/Welsh Office/Departmentof Education for Northern Ireland), Review of Qualifications for 16-19 Year Olds (The DearingReview), London/Cardiff/Belfast, 1996.

202

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Science for Public Understanding

Science for Public Understanding

Context and Genesis

In the early 1980s two curriculum development projects in England had producedSTS (Science, Technology and Society) courses for school students.6 One was the'Science and Society' course, which arose largely from the personal enthusiasm ofJohn Lewis, a physics teacher in a leading private school.7 The other was 'SISCON inSchools', headed by Joan Solomon, then a teacher in a state school, which drew onwork at university level to develop courses in 'Science in a Social Context (SISCON)'.8

Syllabuses and examinations based on these projects were offered, at both AS andGCSE levels. The GCSE syllabus was withdrawn in the late 1980s, as it could notmeet the criteria of die National Curriculum. The AS—level syllabuses were also merged,as the numbers doing each were small.

When the Labour Government was elected in 1996, it was clear to most peoplethat the recently completed Dearing review of post-16 qualifications9 would lead tonew opportunities for subjects that would help to broaden students' courses.

Phil Pryor, Subject Officer for science at the Northern Examinations and AssessmentBoard (NEAB)10, suggested that ideas in a recent article of mine11 might form the basisof an AS—level science, technology and society type subject. However, he felt that thestyle of 'STS' was becoming dated and diat an emphasis on public understanding ofscience would be more in tune with the spirit of die times. This forced me to considerhow my 'broad-brush' ideas might be made to work in a real teaching programme andexamination syllabus, and how the various strands might be integrated into a package oflessons for use in the post-compulsory curriculum. At AS—level, in sharp contrast to pre-16, it is not necessary to match the 'official criteria' of the National.Curriculum. Andwhilst mainstream subjects such as biology, chemistry and physics do have defined subjectcores at AS—level also, diere are none for 'fringe' subjects. So we would be free to includewhatever we wanted, subject to some broader criteria; for instance, an AS—levelqualification would need to appear intermediate between GCSE and A—level.

6. G. Aikenhcad, 'What is STS Science Teaching?' in J. Solomon and G. Aikenhead (eds.) STSEducation. International Perspectives on Reform, New York, 1994, pp. 47-59, and A. Hunt, STSTeaching in England in J. Solomon and G. Aikenhead (eds.), STS Education. InternationalPerspectives on Reform, New York, 1994, pp. 68-74.

7. J. Lewis, (Project Director), Science in Society. Teachers Guide and Readers, London, 1981.8. J. Solomon, Science In a Social CONtext. (Eight readers), Oxford/Hatfield, 1983.9. DfEE/WO/DENI, op. cit.10. This subsequently merged with two other examining bodies to form the Assessment and

Qualifications Alliance (AQA).11. R. Millar, 'Towards a Science Curriculum for Public Understanding', School Science Review, vol.

77, no. 280, 1996, pp. 7-18.

203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Robin Millar

First Sketches

My draft paper for NEAB began by arguing that a science course to improve publicunderstanding of science should base its choice of content primarily on the democraticargument (that an understanding of science is necessary so that people may participatein discussion, debate and decision-making about the application and implications ofscience and technology), and the cultural argument (that more people should be enabledto enjoy and appreciate science as a major cultural achievement). Students followingsuch a course are much more likely to be consumers of scientific knowledge in later lifethan producers of new scientific knowledge. The emphasis should not be on practicalwork and laboratory skills, but on becoming a better-informed and more sophisticatedconsumer of information about matters involving science and technology. The paperthen went on, following the School Science Review article, to propose an AS-syllabuswhich aimed to develop and consolidate students' understanding of a few selected'Key science ideas and models', and of a set of'Ideas about science'. The former includedthings like the germ theory of disease, and the particle model of chemical reactions;the latter included lists of points about the nature of science explanations, the influenceof social factors on scientific knowledge claims, risk and risk assessment, and so on.Although the paper did not explicitly say so, these lists were to some extent empiricallyderived.

I carried out a small, and fairly unsystematic, survey of science-related articles inone national newspaper over a period of several weeks in summer 1996, trying toidentify the science knowledge that would be most useful in making sense of thesearticles and the stories they presented. As others have noted, health and environmentissues tend to predominate in newspaper stories about science, followed by storiesabout space exploration and astronomy.12 The health and medical stories use ideasabout the transmission of disease and about genetics, and often presuppose morefundamental ideas, like the idea of a cell. Many environmental stories are aboutpollution of some sort, and an understanding of chemical reactions is valuable, perhapsessential, for making sense of them.13 Global concerns, like rising CO2 levels andclimate change, or high-level ozone depletion, use ideas about radiation, as do storiesabout radioactivity. Ecology stories involve notions about interdependence of species.The astronomy stories often assume some knowledge of the structure of the solarsystem and the universe.

12. G. Jones, I. Connell and J. Meadows, The Presentation of Science by the Media, Leicester, 1978,and J. Gregory and S. Miller, Science in Public. Communication, Culture and Credibility, NewYork, 1998, pp. 117-120.

13. B. Andersson, 'Pupils' Conceptions of Matter and its Transformations Age 12-16', Studies inScience Education, vol. 18, 1990, pp. 53-85.

204

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Science for Public Understanding

We know, however, from a large and growing body of research, that many studentshave only the haziest of understandings of these 'Key science ideas and models' at theend of their school science course. The aim of an AS-level course in SPU should,therefore, be to help them sort out the ideas they have met and make better sense ofthem, so that they can use these ideas—for tasks like interpreting newspaper articles "and television programmes, and for taking part in discussion of issues and controversies.In the same sort of way, these media reports of science can really only be understoodif you have some 'thinking tools' for reflecting on science itself. Many people have saidas much, but few have gone on to try to spell out what these ideas are, at the level thatmight be appropriate for a school course. (Rather than give examples of these as theyappeared in the first draft, I will show later how they appear in the current version ofthe SPU syllabus).

Teaching through Topics

This draft paper was discussed at a meeting in October 1996 at the NEAB's offices,attended by Andrew Hunt (Director of the Nuffield Curriculum Projects Centre andChief Examiner of the existing AS-level Science, Technology and Society syllabus) andby several teachers with experience of the STS syllabus. With a generally favourableresponse to the draft paper, a decision was made to hold a meeting with a larger groupof experienced AS-levcl STS teachers. This took place in December 1996. The clearmessage from the teachers was that, whilst the science ideas and the ideas-about-science listed in the draft paper were indeed important, and could provide a goodframework for the new syllabus, the prominence of these in the current draft wouldbe off-putting to both teachers and potential students. (The freedom of subject choicein the post-16 curriculum in England means that a 'market' operates, and any syllabusmust attract custom to survive. So initial impressions matter!). The teachers' view wasthat the opportunity to discuss interesting and controversial topics was a strongattraction for many students (and also for teachers adopting this sort of course), andso the syllabus should give more prominence to topics and issues. In fact it had alwaysbeen the intention, and was stated in the first draft paper, that students' understandingof the key science ideas and of the ideas-about-science would be developed throughwork on topics and issues—but this did not come across strongly enough. There wassuch clear consensus on this that the principle was quickly agreed and most of themeeting was then used to draw up a list of the topics that teachers felt from experiencewere of greatest interest to students of this age. The final list was quite long andcontained many of the issues identified in the newspaper survey above. I undertook,following the meeting, to draft a revised version of the syllabus content, which wouldlook much more obviously topic-based.

205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Robin Millar

Towards a First Syllabus Submission

A second draft was produced quickly and circulated in January 1997. Its most significantfeature was the way it tried to represent the structure of the syllabus content. Thesyllabus consists of a series of Teaching Topics, each divided into several sub-topics;these are the elements which teachers would use to organise their own programmes ofwork (and are therefore what, at any time, the teacher and students would regard theircurrent science lessons as being about). For each sub-topic, however, we would identifyexplicitly the Science Explanations and the Ideas about Science that could be exploredthrough the teaching of that sub-topic. A separate section of the syllabus then statedexplicitly the level of understanding expected of each of the Science Explanations andlisted the Ideas about Science in a systematic order, showing more clearly the overallview of science which the course was trying to communicate to students.

The January 1997 draft proposed eight Teaching Topicr. Keeping healthy, Dealingwith waste, Using genetic knowledge, Innovation and change, Medical ethics, Fuelsand energy, Global effects of human activity, and Science and our view of ourselves.These were further divided into sub-topics, each of which was cross-referenced tospecific statements from the list of Ideas about Science and/or to one or more of theScience Explanations. This showed how, by covering all the topics, you had opportunitiesto teach all the Science Explanations and Ideas about Science. Feedback from the othersinvolved in the development process was very positive about the structure, but suggestedthat the material looked too much for a one-year course. So some were deleted andthe rest re-organised, to produce a version with four Teaching Topicr. Understandinghealth, Understanding die effects of using energy resources, Understanding our impactson the environment, and Understanding the universe and our place in it.

At this stage, we also had to think about how the syllabus would be assessed.National guidelines demanded that 75 per cent of the assessment be based on a terminalexamination. We decided to use a format similar to that of AS-level Science, Technologyand Society, but to include more questions about the Science Explanations, and theIdeas about Science. The remaining 25 per cent could be for coursework undertakenduring the course and marked by the teacher (followed by external moderation). Wedecided to break this into two components: a study of a topical scientific issue, and acritical account of a piece of popular science writing. The former allows teachers andstudents to spend some course time looking at an issue that is currently topical,something which is very difficult to accommodate in the specified syllabus content.The latter emerged as an idea late in the development process; its purpose was to drawstudents' attention to the large and growing body of popular science writing in thebookshops, and to introduce them to the pleasures of reading some of it. Criteria forassessing students' work on both these tasks were also drafted, as were sampleexamination questions to zssess the rest of the syllabus content.

206

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Science for Public Understanding

The syllabus proposal was submitted to the School Curriculum and AssessmentAuthority14 in May 1997. It was received positively; changes required were minor. Itwas revised to address these, resubmitted in November 1997 and approved for use ina restricted number of pilot centres (up to 40 schools or colleges and up to 1000students) for two years from September 1998.

Further Revision

Before the first year of piloting was complete, it became clear that we would have torevise the syllabus again. The reason was a decision of government to harmonise thestructure of academic and vocational post-16 courses. As part of this, all A-levels wereto consist of six roughly equally-sized modules, and AS—levels of three. (The purposewas to facilitate construction of courses using modules from different subjects.). Therules allowed us to increase the weighting of the coursework component to 30 percent, which we were pleased to do. We then reorganised the content into two equal-sized modules, entitled: Issues in the Life Sciences and Issues in the Physical Sciences.In the process, we took the opportunity to reduce the content a little, by omitting oneor two topics that teachers were having more difficulty covering, and to clarify thewording of some of the Ideas about Science. Table 1 shows the topics and sub-topicsthat make up these modules.

Table 1Syllabus topics and sub-topics

ModuleIssues in the Life Sciences

Issues in the PhysicalSciences

TopicUnderstanding health anddisease

Understanding genetics

Understanding who we are

Understanding our use ofenergy resources

Understanding the effects of'.radiationUnderstanding where we are

Sub-topicInfectious diseaseHealth risksMedical ethicsAlternative medicineGenetic diseasesGenetic engineeringThe move away from a human-centred view of the natural orderUsing fuelsElectricity suppliesAir quality-Fuels and the global environmentSources and effects of radiation

The move away from an earth-centred view of the universe

14. The predecessor of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), which now overseesall curriculum and assessment matters.

207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Robin Millar

Table 2 then shows how two of these sub-topics are set out in the syllabus.

Table2Two syllabus sub-topics

1.2 Health Risks

Ideas about science

Science explanations

1.3 Medical Ethics

Ideas about science

A study of a claimed risk to health caused by a dietary orenvironmental factor (e.g. sick building' syndrome, smokingand lung cancer, aluminium and Alzheimer's). Uncertainties ofevidence and its interpretation. Methods of collecting evidence.Differing interpretations of evidence.

Heart disease: patterns of incidence, symptoms, origins anddevelopment, risk factors and the evidence for proposed links.The use and interpretation of statistical evidence.

Causal links: statements a-g.Risk and risk assessment: statements a-c.

The germ theory of disease.

New medicines: procedures for testing including use of animals,experimental designs in drug trials, double blind studies. Legaland moral obligations of pharmaceutical companies.

Reproduction: use of routine screening tests during pregnancy(e.g. blood tests, amniocentesis, ultrasound scans), judgementsabout the quality of life, abortion (techniques, issues and ethicaldilemmas).

Decisions about science and technology: statements a-i.

The cross-references to Ideas about Science and Science Explanations are shown at theend of each sub-topic. The complete list of Ideas about Science is shown in Table 3; theScience Explanations which students will meet are listed in Table 4. This revised syllabushas now been approved by QCA for use from September 2000, for first examinationin June 2001.15

15. AQA, 2000, op. cit.

208

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Science for Public Understanding

Table 3The complete list of Ideas about Science to be taught

Data and Explanations Through their study of the course, candidates should:

a. appreciate that you can never be sure that a measurement givesthe 'true' value of the quantity being measured, and be able togive some reasons why;

b. know that we can have more confidence in the average ofseveral repeated measurements than in a single measurement,and that the variation in repeat measurements enables us toidentify the range within which the 'true' value probably lies;

c. know that scientists value observations and measurements thatarc rcplicable (on different occasions and/or by differentpeople), and be able to explain why;

d. understand that scientists often search for explanations bytrying to identify relationships between variables;

e. understand that in order to investigate the relationship betweentwo variables, all other variables which might have an influencemust be kept constant;

f. recognise diat scientific explanations do not simply 'emerge'from data; proposing an explanation involves conjecture andcreative imagination;

g. appreciate diat many scientific explanations are based onmodels which may involve things that cannot be directlyobserved;

h. understand how observation and experiment (planned andpurposeful intervention) arc used in science to rule outalternative explanations, with the aim of reaching a single,agreed explanation;

i. recognise that data can indicate diat an explanation is incorrect(falsification) but cannot prove conclusively that an explanationis correct;

j . Appreciate diat we become more confident about anexplanation if it leads to predictions (especially novel orunexpected ones) which are dien found to agree withobservation, or if a device or procedure based upon it works asexpected, or if it includes a plausible mechanism for causing thechanges observed;

k. recognise and appreciate the reasons for, people's reluctance toreject a well established explanation in the face of apparentanomalies, until a better explanation is available;

1. understand diat reported findings and explanations mustwithstand critical scrutiny by other scientists, before dicy areaccepted as scientific knowledge.

209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Robin Millar

Social Influences onScience and Technology

a.

b.

Through their study of the course, candidates should:

recognise that the interests and concerns of society influencethe directions of scientific research and technologicaldevelopment, and the extent of funding for work in differentareas;recognise that a persons views and expectations (and dieir socialinterests and commitments) can influence the data they collectand their interpretations of it;recognise that we often consider personal characteristics ofscientists (such as their reputation, their seniority, and theinterests of organisations they work for) when we evaluate theirstatements, and consider how far this is justified.

Causal links Through their study of die course, candidates should:

a. recognise that many questions of interest are not yet amenableto a full explanation in terms of a predictive theoretical model,so the best we can do is to look for a correlation between aparticular factor and an outcome;

b. understand the idea of a correlation, and recognise that acorrelation between variables docs not necessarily imply a casuallink;

c. understand tJiat some causal factors increase the chance (or not)of an outcome but do not invariably cause it, and be able togive reasons why this might be so;

d. know diat claims about large populations are usually based onmeasurements on a sample, and diat the size of the sample, andthe way in which it is selected, will affect the validity of theclaim about the population;

c. appreciate the particular difficulties in providing clear evidenceabout the causes of events which occur with very low frequency,and be able to provide examples of cases where such evidencehas been obtained despite diesc difficulties;

f. recognising the particular problem of'proving a negative', i.e.of obtaining convincing evidence that a factor does not cause aclaimed effect;

g. recognise the value of identifying a plausible mechanism linkingcause and effect in resolving claims about causal factors.

210

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

• Science for Public Understanding

4 Risk and Risk Assessment Through their study of the course, candidates should:

a. understand, and be able to translate between, different ways ofexpressing the size of a risk;

b. Be aware of the range of factors which can influence people'swillingness to accept specific risks, in particular the differencebetween imposed and voluntarily-accepted risks;

c. understand the interplay between level of risk and seriousnessof outcome, in the acceptability of personal and social risks;

d. be aware of the contribution of risk assessment to decisionsabout the management of risk;

e. be aware of the uncertainties involved in risk assessment.

5 Decisions aboutScience and Technology, Through their study of the course, candidates should:

a. recognise how technologies based on science have been used inindustry, commerce and medicine and how this has contributedgreatly to the quality of life for many people;

b. recognise that technologies based on science may also haveunintended and undesirable impacts on the quality of life andon the environment;

c. understand that technology, as the effort to find solutions toperceived human problems, both draws upon scientificunderstanding and facilitates its development;

d. understand that decisions about appropriate solutions toproblems are influenced by a range of considerations (includingtechnical feasibility economic cost,- social and environmentalimpact, ethical implications, and political and religiouscommitments) and that these may lead to different solutions indifferent contexts;

e. be aware of some of the ways in which society seeks to controland regulate the development and application of scientificknowledge (from local pressure groups to official regulatorybodies);

f. be aware of the role of the mass media in providinginformation, setting the agenda and influencing opinion onissues involving science and technology;

g. distinguish between technical issues (what can be done) andethical issues (what ought to be done) when considering issuesinvolving science and technology;

h. recognise that a persons view on a controversial issue may stemfrom a more fundamental moral position which they hold;

i. recognise, and be able to discuss, the tension between the rightsof individuals and groups, and of society to regulate activitiesand practices.

211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Robin Millar

Table 4Science Explanations encountered during the course

• The particle model of chemical reactions• Model of the atom• Radioactivity• The radiation model of action at a distance• The field model of action at a distance• The scale, origin and future of the universe• Energy: its transfer, conservation and dissipation• Cells as the basic units of living things• The germ theory of disease• The gene model of inheritance• The theory of evolution by natural selection• The interdependence of species

How Well does it work in Practice?

Just over 200 students took the examination in the trial version of AS—level Science forPublic Understanding in June 1999. A somewhat larger number will finish in June2000. Feedback is generally positive and the examination papers and assessedcoursework showed a full range of levels of understanding (and were awarded a fullrange of AS grades). Many of the teachers choosing this pilot syllabus have had someexperience with the previous STS syllabus, and so are familiar and comfortable with adiscussion—and issues—based form of science teaching. Indeed one told me after arecent teachers' meeting that 'this sort of course is what I came into teaching for.' Thereal challenge is how to expand beyond this group of already committed teachers, andincrease significantly the numbers of students following the course. In part this maybe determined by national trends; it seems likely that the idea of AS-levels as 'half A-levels' may catch on to a greater extent than previous efforts to broaden the Englishsixth form curriculum. Much will depend on the views of admissions tutors in theprestigious universities: will they be looking for applicants with more than three A-levels and will they like to see an AS-level in a subject that is complementary to themain A-levels? If so, schools and colleges will allocate resources for this kind ofcurriculum broadening, and SPU may look attractive as a science course for studentswho would otherwise include no science in their programmes.

The other strategy for increasing uptake is to provide good support for teacherswho may be attracted to the idea of the course, but lack confidence to tackle it. So we

212

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Science for Public Understanding

arc currently producing a textbook and developing a web site16 in order to providebackground information, ideas and teaching activities. These should be in place forteachers and students beginning the course in September 2000.

Science for Public Understanding: The Way Forward?

The arguments and concerns with which I began this chapter are very general onesabout the form of the science curriculum we offer to all pupils during the compulsoryphase of schooling. What AS Science for Public Understanding contributes to thisongoing debate is one fully worked out model of a science course with a publicunderstanding of science emphasis. It shows that it is possible to combine the keyelements of such a course into a teachable package. It is not, of course, the only way.But it offers a model on which others may improve.

AS Science for Public Understandinghas come into existence by exploiting a nichewhere there is a relatively high degree of freedom within an increasingly controlledand constrained curriculum system. But it may provide a means of stimulating changewithin the more constrained compulsory phase. Increasingly the case is being madethat the science programme for the main secondary school years should have a muchstronger public understanding of science emphasis.17 But no such courses exist, toshow what such a change of emphasis might involve. We can ask: could a similarcourse to SPU work for 14-16 year olds? And would it be more appropriate than whatwe currently offer?

Those involved in developing the AS-level course believe the answer to that is'yes*. But we also recognise that it is more difficult than designing an AS—level course.The key reason is that the students at AS—level have already covered the NationalCurriculum, and previously met all the main Science Explanations in the AS—levelcourse. This means that the explanations can be introduced in any order in the syllabus(and teaching programme), as required by the Teaching Topics covered. In a 14-16course, where students might be meeting these science ideas for the first time (so thatthe course has to teach these ideas, rather than just help students to clarify and improvetheir understanding), the order in which they are introduced will be much moreimportant. This adds another significant challenge for curriculum development atthis level. But it is a challenge that we would be happy to take on.

16. At http://www.nuffield.org/spu/17. R. Millar and J. Osborne (eds.), Beyond 2000. Science Education fir the Future. (The Report of

a Seminar Series funded by the Nuffield Foundation), London, 1998. (available from: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/education)

213

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Robin Millar

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the very substantial contributions of Andrew Hunt(NufReld Curriculum Projects Centre), Angela Melamed (Barnet College), Paul BowersIsaacson (North "Westminster School) and Phil Pryor (NEAB/AQA) to the developmentof die AS-syllabus in Science for Public Understanding.

214

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:42

08

Oct

ober

201

4