Comments on: Draft national curriculum

By: alouise

alouise — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:52:10 +0000

From what I’ve seen so far of the Science curriculum for Years 7 to 10, it looks like a walk down memory lane eg. who remembers teaching simple machines to Year 8?
I am in favour of loading more content into the primary school stages, however, I wonder if the teachers will be adequately trained in time. Also, I feel for the Years 7 and 8 students who’ll have missed out on this preparation and face learning topics now presently taught in Years 9 and 10. As for Year 10 students learning about the evidence for wave-particle duality of light, that is, the photo-electric effect, hey, while we’re at it, why not also throw in Maxwell’s equations and relativity! Someone had to be tripping when they tossed in this syllabus gem!

By: John D

John D — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:18:53 +0000

Back in the real old days when I went to school the periodic table came in the final yr after we had learned a lot about chemistry. The impact was a lot greater then because I could understand how useful it was. The scientific process is about collecting data and then looking for patterns and hypothesis to explain it.
Agree with Robert that statistics is far more important in terms of doing a whole range of jobs as well as understanding the uncertainties associated with science.
You don’t have to be able to do statistics but it is important to understand the key concepts and to know when statistical analysis is necessary.

By: Mercurius

Mercurius — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:54:54 +0000

…or art from a colour palette…

By: David Irving (no relation)

David Irving (no relation) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:51:57 +0000

Or mathematics from a book of logarithmic tables, come to that.

By: Liam

Liam — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:35:25 +0000

Or history from a chronology, desipis. Useful to have a list of dates and facts, certainly, but not until you know how to read old things.

By: desipis

desipis — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:30:25 +0000

bruce,

No, you teach them at the same time so that students are able to have a visual way of seeing the differences between elements.

The period table is reference material not a teaching aid. It’s quite a poor tool in actually understanding chemistry behind it’s structure. I mean you don’t teach English out of a dictionary do you?

By: Martin B

Martin B — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:23:06 +0000

So you really don’t care when a child is taught one of the most basic foundations of chemistry?

I do care about that; I care that information be taught at a time when it is going to be able to be properly understood.

The Periodic Table as a list of different types of atoms is cute. However to understand the basis of the periodic table, why it is organised the way it is and what it allows us to predict about elemental properties depends on a good understanding of the atomic structure. This is how it is organised in the Draft currifculum and it seems sensible to me.

I have already mentioned how it will be almost impossible to avoid referring to the PT as a list of elements in year 9 anyway, and I draw bruce’s attention to :
“Q: Does the draft Australian Curriculum represent the whole curriculum that is to be taught to students?
A: The term ‘curriculum’ is typically used to refer to the sum total of intended learning experiences. The Australian Curriculum will not be the whole curriculum in that sense. The Australian Curriculum will define, for all students, a broad scope and sequence of core learning.”

But I have heard barely a peep about aboriginal creationism being taught in its place.

Probably because that is not the case.

By: bruce

bruce — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:47:11 +0000

No, you didn’t say they shouldn’t be taught, you said you didn’t care when they were taught. So you really don’t care when a child is taught one of the most basic foundations of chemistry? Yes, it is a disgrace that it takes that long, but apparently you can’t complain about the idiots writing the science program, only about early education on this post

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:44:04 +0000

I think we can all do without the scientific bigotry, thanks Bruce.

I suggest you re-read my post at 88: I never expressed a view as to when they should or shouldn’t teach periodic tables; not least because I’m not an expert in the topic, nor do I profess to be.

Though it has clearly struck a chord with you: we have gathered that. But as I said, if you feel so strongly about, I suggest you vent your opinion through the appropriate channels established by the federal Department.

By: bruce

bruce — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:19:02 +0000

Oh I see, so long as its in the curriculum who gives a fuck when they teach it? What kind of idiotic statement is that? So by that logic who cares if we start teaching reading until a year later, or maths. The hypocrisy here is mind boggling. If this was a liberal government that had put in christian creationism in the scientific component of the curriculum you’d be screaming for their blood and then you’d be making comments like “They don’t even teach something as basic as the periodic table.”

But I have heard barely a peep about aboriginal creationism being taught in its place. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion about the curriculum and everyone seems to like to go into every minute detail regarding phonics, but as soon as I question why students are being left ignorant in regards to one of the most fundamental principles of chemistry its “For fuck sake Bruce, its in the curriculum isn’t it?”