A Vision for Science Education in Malta. Report

The

Maltese

Association

of

Science

Educators has analysed the feedback obtained from members on the new draft National

Curriculum

Framework

and

formulated this report. Disclaimer: What appears in this report doesn’t necessarily express the views of the MASE committee.

The Early Years and Primary Science ‘A vision for Science Education in Malta’ and ‘The National Curriculum Framework’ documents propose a number of clear goals for Science education in Malta. These goals highlight the fact that local Science education should encompass a dual endeavour; that of assisting our students to become effective scientific literate individuals and creating the right conditions to educate new generations of scientists and technologists. The vision document points out that, ‘The effectiveness of these is enhanced when strong links are made in the Early Years, between the primary and secondary education curricula and with the post-secondary science curricula. By co-ordinating the work at all levels, unnecessary repetition is avoided and age-appropriate subject content and skills can be emphasised.’ (pg. 27) Teachers seem to agree with this approach and believe that this reform should be perpetrated throughout all the educational system. This perception reflects the feedback collected during the seminar ‘The way forward – Co-ordinated Science?’ organised by MASE in January 2007. Hence when considering the details proposed in the vision document, there seems to be general agreement with the fact that, during the early years, children should be encouraged to start developing their skills and become inquisitive about the world around them since at this initial stage in the learning journey, they begin to understand fundamental science concepts and develop abilities of inquiry by using their natural curiosity to motivate exploration of their surroundings. Following this point of departure, teachers seem to agree with the proposal in the National Curriculum Framework to regard Science in Primary as a core subject and believe that it is crucial that any shift in perception about local Science education should clearly start by redefining what is done at primary level. As MASE already stated in the reaction document, ‘TIMSS 2007 – Science, Highlights from Malta’s Results’ (2008), the fact that 52% of the Maltese students participating in TIMSS 2007 either achieved at a Low benchmark or didn’t even manage the Low benchmark for TIMSS Science was a clear indication that the largest group of Maltese students participating in the study lacked basic concepts in science. From the feedback received, teachers seem to believe that this group of students merits special attention since this means that the current system is not catering for them and is not helping them to develop as scientifically literate individuals. Teachers pointed out that the seed of scientific literacy needs to be sown in our primary schools. At this point in their education, students need to become better equipped with the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to become effective individuals in a life imbued with 2

decisions regarding science and technology. However teachers pointed out that the documents seem to indicate that students will be better equipped and hence perform better in TIMMS by mainly restructuring Secondary education. This should not be the case. Teachers indicated that although this study was carried out with Form 3 students, one must acknowledge that technically these students should have done better since they had just finished a two year course (Forms 1 and 2) in Integrated Science. Teachers believe that TIMMS result is a direct consequence of the lack of Science lessons in primary schools. Some teachers believe that in order to ensure a smooth transition and a stronger link between what is done at primary level to what is done in secondary schools there should be a common Science programme for primary schools. While agreeing with the idea that scientific concepts at this age could be clearly developed through a thematic approach that reflects the Maltese local context and issues related to this context, they cannot conceive how co-ordination at all levels is expected when it is suggested ‘...that individual schools develop their own programmes’ (pg. 27). In their view, this kind of approach would put further stress and pressure on Primary teachers, Science peripatetic teachers and the school itself, in a current situation where quoting the vision document, ‘...science teaching in primary schools is not effective’ (pg.20). A common programme for primary schools would eventually allow the students to participate in meaningful scientific activities and ensure that they start inquiring about the world around them. At the same time this ensures that there is a smooth continuation with what will follow at higher levels. MASE members seem to welcome the fact that the time allocation for learning Science is proposed to increase to two/one and a half-hours a week (referring to the distribution of time for a Year 6 class presented in Document 3 pg. 2). This is a laudable improvement from the current situation and might ensure that primary class teachers follow up more effectively the work of the peripatetic teachers. Still it is believed that for students to engage actively in inquiry-based methods of learning that ensure a deeper understanding of science, primary teacher and science peripatetic teachers might require more time than that proposed. One has to acknowledge that in order to encourage school teachers to move away from a traditional transmission model to one that is more interactive, teachers need to be given enough time, as pointed out by Prof. Katja Maaß, project co-ordinator of Primas project: ‘More time needs to be designated for inquiry-based learning in school curricula, as inquiry-based learning is time-consuming when done properly and pupils must have sufficient time to generate their own questions and projects.’

3

Another concern by some of the MASE members is that in the last years there has been a vast investment in Science resources at Secondary level and today we have secondary State schools that are very well equipped with the needed resources. They believe that similar assistance needs to be given to the primary sector. Although peripatetic teachers try their best to transform the classroom or the school environment in a ‘lab’ where the students are encouraged to do science, they would like to see a dedicated science laboratory or science room in each primary school so that students can be encouraged to design investigations, engage in scientific reasoning, manipulate equipment, record data, analyze results, and discuss their findings. Although the work done by Science peripatetic teachers in schools and at the Science Centre is commendable, it is believed that if this kind of hub is created at school level, the work of the peripatetic teachers and classroom teachers would be greatly facilitated. This seems to echo the position statement of the American National Science Teachers Association (NSTA): The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) recommends that all preK–16 teachers of science provide instruction with a priority on making observations and gathering evidence, much of which students experience in the lab or the field, to help students develop a deep understanding of the science content, as well as an understanding of the nature of science, the attitudes of science, and the skills of scientific reasoning. Teachers also seem to welcome the emphasis placed on assessment for Science learning in the vision document. They agree with the position illustrated throughout the whole National Curriculum Framework where there is great emphasis to move from the tradition of examinations and testing that is extensively dominant in our schools (Grima and Chetcuti, 2003, 90) and eventually embrace an assessment strategy that is more formative in nature and therefore is in symbiosis with the move towards ‘science for all’. In their view, the new approach presented through the recently developed outcomes-based curriculum for Form 1 provides a framework through which teachers can challenge the traditional assessment culture based on norm-referenced assessment. If teachers at school level manage to embrace the new approach presented in the new curriculum, by using the learning objectives presented in the syllabus in order to extract specific assessment criteria for each task and in turn use the assessment criteria to assess the students’ work, we would have enacted a process where assessment is truly used for learning. Through criterion-referenced assessment, grading takes into consideration the students’ performance in the different activities, rather than their position within a group and the feedback achieved can tell teachers not only whether students have achieved the specific criteria, but also whether their instruction has been successful. Thereby, the feedback achieved can also serve to provide valuable information to the students about how

4

they can progress and at the same time provides instances where self-and peer-assessment can be enacted. Some members pointed out that currently there is a perception withheld by many, especially parents, that no assessment in Science is done at primary level and hence what is being done is not important. This perception results from the fact that most of the time students and parents ultimately receive no feedback about the activities done at school and hence tend to consider it as not important since ‘unless this element of the curriculum is formally assessed, teachers and students will accord [it] lower status than the examined element’ (The Wellcome Trust, cited in HMSO, 2002, 42). This lack in reporting, results from the simple fact that most of the time ‘Science’ does not feature as one of the subjects in the norm-referenced report sent at home. Even if a mark for ‘Science’ is ultimately issued, some teachers believe that the assessment reports being issued at school level are not serving as an instrument to promote Assessment for Learning. While providing a summary of performance, the mark or grade presented for each subject does not clearly indicate what the students know and can do, nor does it provide feedback on how the students can move forward in the learning process. Apart from that, most of the time, any written feedback provided on the same report might be too vague and frequently focuses on the students’ behaviour rather than underpinning the student’s strengths or presenting a way on how the student can progress. In this view, they would like to suggest a change in the way feedback in Science is reported to students and parents by moving away from the kind of report that is norm-referenced and develop a reporting system that is more criterion-referenced. As described earlier, this kind of feedback would ultimately be more meaningful for all the stakeholders involved in the teaching and learning process, and at the same time provide a true picture of what the students really know and can do. The eLearning platform being proposed can play a fundamental role in achieving this kind of goal. Finally, it is of utmost importance that for such a vision to be enacted in primary schools, the school teachers themselves have to embrace its notions and make it happen in their classrooms. For this to take place, primary school teachers need to be supported in different ways. To achieve an attitudinal shift from the side of teachers, there is the belief that more specialised teachers in science are needed in primary schools. These should not only serve as ‘in-service supporters for the generalist teachers colleagues’ (Peacock, 2002, 78) but should also work together with the teachers. One of their main tasks would be to set up a science school policy ‘to ensure that all students have appropriate access to the science curriculum’ (Gatt and Buttigieg, 2000, 15). Actually the need for ‘a written policy for Science Education’ was also pointed out in the Strategic Plan for the N.M.C. (2001, 5

94). This policy should ensure that if a common programme is designed for all schools, it is developed through common practices and approaches amongst all primary teachers. Apart from that, the already existent group of Science peripatetic teachers need to be given the opportunity to further their studies in their area of specialisation. The establishment of a ‘Diploma Course in Primary Science’ as proposed in the Strategic Plan for the N.M.C. (2001, 94) would offer this opportunity. Primary school teachers are leading actors in this process. They can either enact this vision or keep the status quo. Only with a lot of assistance at hand can primary teachers own the objectives presented in the vision document for Science education in Malta and make them happen in the classrooms. Members also believe that training in teaching Science in Primary is a needed component, yet, proper arrangements need to be made so to ensure that no extra stress is placed on these teachers.

Secondary Science The vision document for Science education in Malta places a great emphasis on the rethinking of secondary Science both in its structure and in pedagogical terms. When considering the structural changes proposed, members seem to acknowledge the importance of such a review and understand that we should reconsider current practices in secondary science since in the current context we are not preparing the great majority of our students with the right knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to become functional individuals in a society permeated with science and technology. Many believe that the time has come to create an integration of the three sciences throughout the whole of secondary schooling. This will provide a less fragmented curriculum that targets scientific literacy. This is consistent with Ventura (2002, 37) when suggesting that, Even if this strategy were to fail in attracting more students to careers in science, it would still be beneficial to the majority if it manages to give them confidence in seeking and reflecting on information about scientific matters that affect their quality of life. While agreeing with the idea that students have to start with a Core Science component in Form 1 & 2 and welcoming the introduction of a Core Science Programme for those students from Form 3 to Form 5 who do not want to specialise in Science, members gave the same feedback they also gave following the seminar ‘Co-ordinated Science- The way forward?’ organised in 2007 where it was mentioned that Co-ordinated Science (now Core Science) should not be seen

6

as an easy option. The syllabus of this Core Science should also cover enough content so that the students can take up any science subject at Intermediate level. With regards to the options offered for those students who want to specialise in Science, while agreeing with Science Option 4 that enables those students to study all the science areas, many teachers are worried that most of the students who are capable of sitting for options 1 to 3, would opt out from this kind of specialisation and choose Core Science instead. One has to remember that when students choose their options in Form 3, most are not sure about their future career choices. Such a perception also emerged through TIMSS 2007 analysis since although Maltese students appear to value the fact that science might be important for their lives and future career, most of the students struggle to find science matching their capabilities. In Form 3, students also have to choose from a wide range of options and an option that includes two Sciences might be considered as a ‘high risk’ alternative (Osborne, Simon & Collins, 2003, 1071). Teachers are concerned that those students who may have taken one of the Sciences as their option would not ultimately consider options 1 to 3 since they may regard it beyond their capabilities and too similar to Science Option 4. Thus, making students choose two Science subjects will make most of them go for other choices. Many suggested that students should be allowed to take one Science subject as their area of specialisation instead of taking Options 1 to 3. This would eventually encourage more students to consider a Science subject as one of their options. These teachers believe that few students may take options 1 -3 as they are and particular students who may have considered one subject, say Life Science as their option, may not take it since they have to choose another Science subject along with it. They mentioned that they were more in favour to change Options 1 to 3 and instead give the students the opportunity to continue with a Core Science Programme together with one of the Sciences. In this way, students will have the opportunity to consider the broader picture through Core Science and at the same time have the possibility to specialise in one area. Eventually, students would be able to choose another option, for example Computer Studies, PE, Design and Technology, Home Economics and so on. Moreover, the fact that students would not be permitted to choose Physics by itself, will make certain combination of options impossible... e.g. choosing Physics, Design and Technology and Graphical communication would not be possible! The document restricts Physics to be chosen only with Chemistry and Biology whereas Physics is related also to other technical subjects. Teachers believe that the formulation of the curricula for Core Science, Life Science, Material Science and Physical Science has to be achieved through the active involvement of Science teachers who are currently teaching Science subjects at secondary and post-secondary levels. 7

Through such an involvement it is believed that the true needs of the students can be catered for and there is a clear continuation between what is done at secondary and post-secondary levels. In order to attract more students towards Science, there is the strong belief that guidance teachers and Science teachers themselves need proper training in order to direct more students towards careers that are related to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). They believe that Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics are key subjects that are at the heart of our sustainable socio-economic development and at a school level, there needs to be more effort to attract a greater number of students towards STEM related careers. Parents also play an important role in their children’s subject choice. In this regard, they believe that at a national level, there needs to be more information and activities that target parents and the general public in order to promote STEM careers, so that as a country we can be able to anticipate and not follow demands in these areas. When considering the pedagogical aspects involved, many support the kind of approach promoted. They firmly believe that by adopting an inquiry-based methodology, teachers can truly succeed to develop excitement around Science. Still, they feel that great care needs to be taken in the implementation of inquiry-based approaches vis-à-vis the development of the new curricula for the different Science areas since as highlighted in European Commission’s document ‘Science Education Now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe’, ‘this approach faces more reluctance from teachers as they often consider it as time-consuming leading to conflict with the requirement to deliver curricula content’. (p.12) Hence they believe that is very important that all those involved in the development of the new curricula understand that if they really want teachers to embrace this approach, they have to strike a balance between the content of the Science curriculum for each area and time required to actually cover the indicated content. If this kind of equilibrium is not maintained, there is the risk that many teachers revert back to a transmission model of teaching in order to meet the demands of the new curricula. One of the main concerns that teachers mentioned is related to their retraining. The proposed approach requires considerable retraining to enable teachers to teach the new Science curriculum. It is evident that the new system, if implemented, would require a large group from the present teachers to start teaching Core Science. Although it is believed that the requirements for Form 1 and 2 Core Science can be clearly catered for through the present group of Integrated Science teachers, it is evident that most of the Science teachers need retraining in one or two subject 8

areas in order to teach Core Science in Form 3, 4 and 5, especially when considering that half of the teachers’ cohort has a qualification in Mathematics and Physics, and no other scientific specialisation. Most of these teachers never studied Chemistry or Biology at ordinary level. Training in content takes time and some teachers maintained that the timeframes mentioned in the document are not realistic. Teachers also pointed out that they are very sceptical about how effective this training will be. One teacher told us, ‘Imagine taking a 45 year old teacher who never studied German and giving him some so called training in German and sending him to teach it to 13 year olds. Will he be able to do it?’ Some teachers also pointed out that in the document, it is stated that newly graduates do not require any further training. This consideration is not considered to be realistic when considering that some of these graduates never studied any Chemistry or Biology and the few credits that they had at University were simply not enough. Some more concerns: 

At the moment the way a science subject is formally assessed is not the same between the three subjects. For example, along the three years in Biology, students are requested to present at least three Problem Solving Experiments together with a fieldwork and at least one Biological Visit, each of which requires a write up of at least 1500 words, supplemented with statistics, graphs etc... Most students at Junior Lyceums find it extremely difficult to present a good write up for the ‘normal’ experiments, let alone 1500 words for the above mentioned longer and more detailed reports. The requirements for Physics and Chemistry are less demanding, so when a new curriculum is set up, the type of formal assessment employed should be of equal demand in all subjects.



Since a lot of importance is given to the change in the methodology required to provide students with the best science learning experience possible, and to the non-formal assessment, the amount of content in the subjects, especially in the ‘option’ subjects, should be accurately reviewed, possibly reduced. This is because with the more conventional methodology currently used it is extremely difficult to manage to cover all the syllabus by the end of the year. For example the write ups mentioned in the point above take up so much time to prepare, both in class and by the students at home, that less time is left for other things, no matter how interesting they are. So, in order to be able to engage students more, there should be less content to be covered, so that this will be done in a more interesting method. 9



Not all schools have adequate laboratory facilities. For example at St. Thomas More Boys Junior Lyceum, Hamrun, there are just three labs, one of which is more of a room than a lab, which must be shared amongst all the science classes, so much so that last year some Physics groups could access a lab only once every three weeks!!! Who knows what will happen this year when the Form 1 science groups are to access the labs too? It is useless to create a new curriculum, if the tools to implement it are not available. It is of extreme importance to treat ALL students equally. Its no student’s fault of living in Fgura thus having access to a meagre room as a Biology lab, whereas a Mosta boy can access a state of the art lab!



In the requirements needed for the implementation of the new syllabus a lot of importance is given to the training of teachers. It is hoped that this will not mean a simple, compacted inservice course three days before the start of the scholastic year in which this new curriculum will start to be implemented. Ideally this training would not be after school hours but be conducted in a specific time slot in the teachers’ time-table (e,g, an afternoon every week).



Teachers believe that the curriculum’s vision is a very good one, however they are afraid of the way it will be implemented. A lot seems to be expected from them but an extremely great amount of support, both at a moral and classroom level is needed.



There seem to be a large number of teachers who are still of the belief that it is best if we do not integrate the sciences but leave their instruction separate. Some even suggested that Core Science could be taught by separate teachers in a sort of modular manner where students change teachers each term according to the area being taught.



Some Physics teachers believe that that there will be an enormous surplus of Physics teachers, even if Physics is left as a separate science, let alone if students have to choose it together with another science subject.

Finally, it was mentioned that when a new strategy is implemented, it is crucial that its effectiveness is evaluated after a couple of years. Once the first students have reached post secondary level, it is imperative to obtain feedback from teachers instructing students at this level. Informative feedback provided should be analysed well so as to review this new strategy and include any improvements, if any at all are required. The preparation provided by the subjects in secondary schools should enable a smooth transition to post-secondary schools and it is important that what this report is proposing manages to succeed in this task.

10

Bibliography European Commision. (2007). Science Education Now. A Renewed Pedagogy for the future of Europe. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf Gatt, S. and Buttigieg, J. (2000). Early Science Education. In P. Pace (ed.) The State of Science Education in Malta. Research Report (pp. 5-16). The Malta Council for Science and Technology. Grima, G. and Chetcuti, D. (2003). Current assessment practices in schools in Malta and Gozo – Are search project. Journal of Maltese Educational Research, 1 (2), 57-94. Retrieved December, 1, 2005 from www.educ.um.edu.mt/jmer HMSO. (2002). Science Education from 14 to 19, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Report of Session 2001-02. Volume 1. Report and Proceedings of the Committee. HC 508-1. 11July 2002, London: The Stationary Office Ltd. Maaß, K. (2011). Promoting Inquiry in Mathematics and Science across Europe. Political Issues. Retrieved August 20, 2011 from http://www.primasproject.eu/artikel/en/1297/Political+issues/view.do?lang=en Ministry of Education. (2001). Strategic Plan. National curriculum on its way. Report of the National Steering Committee on the Implementation of the National Minimum Curriculum. Malta: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Employment and the Family. (2011). The National Curriculum Framework. A Vision for Science Education in Malta. Malta: Salesian Press. The Maltese Association of Science Educators. (2007). The Way forward – Co-ordinated Science? Retrieved September 1, 2011, from http://www.masemalta.com/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=7:oth ers&Itemid=5 The Maltese Association of Science Educators. (2008). TIMSS 2007 – Science. Highlights from Malta’s Results. Retrieved September 1, 2011, from http://www.masemalta.com/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=7:oth ers&Itemid=5 The National Science Teachers Association. (2007). NSTA Position Statement: The Integral Role of Laboratory Investigations in Science Instruction. Retrieved August 23, 2011 from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/laboratory.aspx Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1049-1079. Peacock, A. (2002). The Emergence of Primary Science. In Amos, S and Boohan, R. (eds.) Teaching Science in Secondary Schools, London: Routlegde.

11

Ventura, F. (2002). Perspectives on the social relevance of science edcaton. In S. Gatt (Ed.) Proceedings of conference “Linking Science, Technology and Mathematics education and their social relevance (pp. 35-44). Malta: University of Malta.

12