In the writing of a national school curriculum one would assume that a team of experts would work together in the design of a curriculum.
In the case of the curriculum and assessment policy statements for science, it is clear that this did not happen. The team of people either did not function together as a unit or, alternatively, lacked the expertise to produce the document that the country deserves.
When I started to review the statements, I was immediately alarmed by and concerned about the poor sequencing and inappropriate breadth of the curriculum. There has been an attempt to prescribe greater depth, which is a good thing in most cases.
With greater depth, however, comes the need to trim the breadth of the curriculum. The writers of the statements have failed to recognise that the teaching takes place in a real world with time constraints. For example, grade 12 learners have been allocated the same number of teaching weeks as grade 10 and 11 learners. This is unrealistic in terms of the starting date of grade 12 exams and the extensive revision that is required before the finals.
When considering sequencing, I find it strange that abstract concepts such as ionic bonding are taught before teaching electrostatics, which introduces the idea of two kinds of charges. Ionic bonding is about opposite charged ions attracting and therefore requires pre-knowledge about charges that are addressed in the topic on electrostatics.
Such criticisms do not touch upon the broader philosophical approach that the “new” curriculum forces the teacher to implement — we are being driven away from critical thinking and an inquiring approach towards greater rote learning. This change reflects an outdated approach to teaching science.
These brief comments might be difficult for the layman to evaluate and pass judgment on, and you may well find some science teachers who have a different perspective and therefore argue that my evaluation is subjective. With this in mind, let me rather question why the curriculum and assessment statements for science are so full of elementary conceptual and factual errors.
Here are some of the errors that I have spotted (the page numbers refer to the science curriculum documents posted on the basic education department’s website — which are open for public comment until Monday October 18):
- Page 18: “Make solutions of sand and water.” This is impossible because sand does not dissolve in water.
- Page 19: “Explain the concepts of standard temperature and pressure to explain the different boiling points reached at different altitudes.” Standard temperature and pressure are not the explanation of different boiling points.
- Page 23: “Explain that refraction is a change of wave speed in different media, while frequency remains constant.” Refraction is the bending of a wave as a result of a change in wave speed.
- Page 27: “Describe a compound as a group of two or more atoms that are attracted to each other …” Replacing the word “compound” with “molecule” would make this statement correct. The authors are confusing microscopic concepts with macroscopic ones further demonstrated in their statement that “both molecules and ionic substances are compounds”.
- Page 30: “Explain how charged objects can attract uncharged insulators because of movement of polarised molecules in the insulator.” Movement of polarised molecules in insulators is improbable other than in solutions, which are not being referred to in this context.
- Page 31: “Know that when two objects having charges Q1 and Q2 make contact, each will have the same final charge after separation.” This is only true of identically sized conductors on insulating stands. Failure to identify these conditions makes this statement false.
- Page 40: “Research Project: Any ONE of instigation/case study …” Here the problem is one of grammar, not science. It is clear that the document has not been edited properly, which suggests that it was a rushed piece of work.
- Page 53: “State that it is due to the hydrogen bonds formed by water molecules that water absorbs heat from the sun.” Water absorbs electromagnetic radiation related to molecular vibrations where the stretching frequency and bending frequency are affected by hydrogen bonds but are not “due to” them.
- Page 68: “What is an indicator? Find some natural indicators.” My objection here is about choice of words. To “find” something requires of the learner to go looking for something. An indicator is a particular type of chemical which is used to test for pH. Natural indicators are those found in nature yet will not be found in many of the learner’s environments. Asking learners to find natural indicators is therefore an inappropriate objective.
- Page 82: “Define the work done on an object by a force as: W=FxCos”. Definitions are not defined by equations. An equation is a symbolic representation of the relationships as defined in the definition. For example, V = IR is not a definition of Ohm’s Law. Ohm’s Law states that voltage is proportional to current at constant temperature.
- Page 83: “Define conservative forces and give an example.” Sorry, but I could not avoid adding this one as a mistake even though it is scientifically correct. The introduction of this concept will not be grasped in the time allocated and will need to be left for rote learning. Most teachers will require some time to come to terms with the teaching of this new section of work.
- Page 85: “I would suggest that a few …” This seems an unintentional giveaway that it was not a team that worked on this section but rather an individual working in isolation.
- Page 87: “List and describe elimination reactions that are important in industry i.e. in polymer industry.” There are many elimination reactions that are important in industry: Should the learner memorise them all?
- Page 87: “Ethanol from ethane.” This bullet is not an objective. What detail is required about this important industrial process?
In conclusion, the curriculum and assessment policy statements for science contain scientific errors, appear to have been worked on by individuals working independently, seem rushed and do not take into consideration the collective effect of all of their parts.
I would request that if anyone in authority reads this, they investigate the credentials of the individual authors. In addition, I would expect them to consider the conditions and time constraints placed on these individuals in developing this document. We do not need to know the names of the authors but would like to see their qualifications and years of teaching experience within the school context.
Our country and science teachers deserve better. A document of this nature will adversely affect our learners and the future potential of our nation in the sciences.
Warwick Taylor is a Johannesburg science teacher with 22 years of teaching experience