The consultation document ‘A Vision for Science Education in Malta’, published last year by the Education Ministry, while claiming to be visionary, proposes doing away with Physics, Chemistry and Biology in schools, to be replaced by ‘Physical Sciences’, ‘Materials Sciences’ and ‘Life Sciences’, insisting that this will not be just a cosmetic change but “a paradigm shift in the way science is currently taught”.
In a document meant to herald an overhaul of science education, one would have expected some concrete evidence- Josef Lauri
In a document meant to herald an overhaul of science education, one would have expected some concrete evidence. Not a whole curriculum, but at least a few examples of scientific principles or topics, or a brief description of a specimen lesson that would be taught better in the new system. But the document contains nothing of the sort.
The document also seems to forget other subjects that should have been included in the discussion. How is Mathematics, the language of the sciences, going to feature in this paradigm shift?
And what about Computer Science? Is it not time to look at this subject both as a science in itself and as a support to the other sciences? But the document contains no mention of this.
The paradigm shift also “implies a methodology that promotes inquiry-based learning that requires a deeper and integrated understanding of science and how scientific knowledge is structured”. Inquiry-based teaching requires teachers who know the subject very well, even those teaching at primary level. But the document’s lax attitude towards the content of the new science curricula it is heralding is also shown when it comes to suggestions regarding teacher preparation.
The document says that around half the present teachers can be “easily retrained” to teach in the new system. It even identifies 106 teachers who, because they teach Integrated Science, are deemed to be “graduates in science” and therefore need no subject content retraining in any of the three areas. The document does not explain what it means by “graduates in science” when our University’s main science degree produces two-subject honours graduates.
The document also fails to explain how science subjects at advanced or intermediate level will be affected and what changes may need to be made to entry requirements in faculties such as Medicine and Surgery, Engineering and Science.
And how will this paradigm shift affect Science as it is taught at tertiary level? If, for example, the departments in the Faculty of Science still retain the (soon to be discarded) nomenclature of Physics, Chemistry and Biology then, since the change in name is not simply a cosmetic one, students must, at some point, be prepared for the changeover.
One would have hoped that the document’s authors would have discussed issues of such far-reaching effects on science education at tertiary level with the faculties involved, but the document does not throw light on the matter.
Claims that the remit of the authors was not to address science education at post-secondary levels does little to allay fears that the implications of the proposals in the document have not been thoroughly examined in a truly holistic manner.
I am not claiming that the way Science is being taught in our schools does not require serious improvement, such as tighter integration between the different subjects. I also agree that there should be two layers of science teaching in our schools, one for a ‘general audience’ and another for those who intend to specialise in a science or science-related discipline.
I believe these two strands of science teaching might have to be very different, not one existing as a subset of the other. But this document proposes to do away with the topics of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, with which we are familiar and with which we can therefore anchor our ideas, and it announces a paradigm shift in the teaching of science.
Yet by not giving us any concrete indication of what shape these reforms will take, and not presenting any evidence of serious thought about their repercussions, a document that should be the blueprint for elevating science education in Malta to the higher levels required of a knowledge-based economy risks falling somewhat short of its objectives.
And this comes at a very high price – the future of our children.
Prof. Lauri is from the University’s Department of Mathematics.