Educating teachers with the right skills
Are we training science teachers to become Jacks of all trades, not subject specialist teachers, asks Vanessa Kind.
Dr Vanessa Kind CChem FRSC, Durham University
What is the most important question you have ever asked? Mine (apart from one for my future husband) was in 1984, during my interview for a place on the Institute of Education’s Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) chemistry course. In a group interview I had shared a story about my school chemistry teacher. As an end-of-term treat, he aimed a hydrogen-oxygen ‘rocket’ at the music block outside our lab. He neglected (although we noticed but delightfully ignored) to open the window first.
I then posed my question to author of Nuffield Chemistry, Richard Ingle. With a degree in biochemistry, I worried I lacked chemical knowledge. I had researched molecular biology and studied genetics, immunology, microbiology and physiology alongside biochemistry and chemistry. “Should I be a biology specialist?” I asked. His answer determined my career path: “No, of course not, we want you in chemistry!”
Training specialists …
My PGCE was targeted to developing me as a specialist chemist. I learned to carry out demonstration experiments, like the hydrogen-oxygen rocket, and health and safety. I learned to teach specific topics, developing explanations for concepts, such as chemical reactions and the mole. On teaching practice, I taught mainly chemistry, and I observed and talked to expert chemistry teachers and lecturers.
From the 1980s, the Association for Science Education’s ‘Science for All’ proposal that everyone is entitled to learn all science subjects throughout compulsory education took hold. Changes occurred in science curricula and teacher education. Today, PGCE courses educate generalist science teachers. Subject-specific specialist training is a limited add-on, superfluous to ensuring everyone can teach all sciences to 11-to-16-year olds. Access to high quality, subject-specific expertise over an extended period, as I experienced, is long gone.
… or generalists?
Today, around 55% of PGCE science entrants are biologists, often with weak chemistry backgrounds. Research points to gaps between the chemistry knowledge new teachers hold and what they must teach. Trainee science teachers use chemical language imprecisely, and describe, rather than explain, chemical concepts. Non-chemists hold misconceptions that are likely to impact negatively on students’ conceptual learning. Limited opportunities exist for teacher education programmes to address non-specialist science knowledge deficits. Hence, there is no guarantee all newly-qualified science teachers have the high quality chemistry knowledge that is required to teach and inspire students.
Other evidence shows that the levels of support for trainee teachers preparing lessons within and outside their specialist subjects varies. Little support may be provided for subject-specialist lessons, on the grounds that trainees know their subjects. Consequently, lessons feature over- or under-pitched content, misjudged activities, incorrect assumptions of students’ knowledge and poor learning outcomes. Planning and delivery of non-specialism lessons are well-supported, so trainees find out what to teach and how. This is a deficit model for teacher education, supporting weaknesses, but failing to build on potential strengths. Therefore, most science teachers become moderately good at teaching most science topics moderately well, rather than becoming excellent specialist subject teachers.
Not without consequences
The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) notes the importance of permanent science specialists in raising student achievement. And data from the Joint Qualifications Council illustrate that less than 10% of a whole GCSE student cohort may have been consistently taught by a specialist chemistry teacher between the ages of 14 and 18.
Internationally, specialist subject teachers in Finland hold Masters degrees in their subjects. Sweden has introduced a specialist subject teacher education degree programme, to ensure those teaching 14-to-18-year olds have excellent subject knowledge and teaching experience. Singapore insists that all potential teachers hold a degree in the subject they intend to teach, selecting rigorously from the top one-third of graduates.
By contrast, a written response to a House of Lords question about the UK Government’s plans for increasing numbers of specialist chemistry teachers highlighted “support … for individuals interested in teaching chemistry through targeted marketing, personal advisors and securing school experience”. The response also claimed success in raising chemistry teachers’ qualification levels, quoting School Workforce Census data showing that now only 19.6% of chemistry teachers teaching students in years 7 to 13 have no relevant post-A-level qualification.
What does the future hold?
From 2014, the National Curriculum is changing once again. Chemistry will feature in Key Stages 3 and 4 (11-to-16-year olds). Issues for teacher education and how our subject is taught in schools will emerge. The current accepted assumption is that possession of a degree, even in a subject distantly related to chemistry, means trainee teachers ‘know’ their specialism, so require little (or no) formal training to teach it.
More than time, I think, to ask some important questions.
