Triple Science or Double Science. Am Confused!

In nowadays they three types of gcse lower sets of year 10 will just do core exams and they will do them in year 11 if your in set 2 then you do core and additional that 6 exams 2 for each biology chemistry and physics but insteas of taking all 6 in year 11 you learn all of the core content in year 10 and you take your exams in the summer your in year 10 and then you will learn additional and take those 3 exams when your in 11 however set 1 will do core additional and seprate so thats 9 exams but they take all 9 exams in the summer that there in year 11
Core & additional (double science)
Core seperate & additional (triple science)
Hope this helps

You can cash both at the same time as long as you have enough results that no exam counts towards both - there's some rule that says the highest module result has to go towards the double and the lower result towards the triple (I think it's that way around) at least that's what I was told, so you can't choose which result goes where for some reason.

But I suppose if you've already learnt the stuff, it's only sitting more exams?

Surprised that the board allows it though.

They would have to do their Sci/Add Sci modules over again after the first qualification was cashed in. You cannot count the same exam for more than one award.

Yes, sorry - got confused!

I thought it was theoretically possible to do 5 science GCSEs, but you'd have to sit an awful lot of ISAs.

MmeBlueberry, you can indeed get 5 GCSEs by sitting the early modules twice and counting one set of results for double and one towards triple. It is as you say complete madness and I've no idea why the exam boards allow it (although I suppose schools could always enter different boards for double and triple). The candidates end up with an complete excess of exams and 5 GCSEs two of which completely overlap the other three in terms of content and are so rather worthless imo. The schools of course do end up with rather better results which is the only reason some do it. I don't think the practice is very widespead fortunately.

Nymph,

In the 1990s and until the specifications changed 3 years ago, single award and dual award were two different things. Each covered Biology, Chemistry and Physics/

The single award was targeted at less able students and also those students who were superbly gifted in other areas (particularly the arts) and whose timetables were filled with other subjects.

The dual award was targeted at average and able students, including future scientists.

Now, the idea is that the average and able-but-not-future-scientist does Science in Y10 and Additional Science in Y11. Weak students would do just Science, but perhaps spread over the two years. Future Scientists would do separate awards or Sci/Add Sci.

Traditionally (ie when you go back to when I was at school), the standard was to do two Sciences at GCSE-equivalent. I did Physics and Chemistry. Weaker students did just the one Science, as did triple linguists, dual peforming arts, etc. Triple Science was fairly unusual and, in my school, discouraged for the sake of a broad and balanced curriculum.

I think that it is good that all students get all three Sciences. I learnt my Biology from having babies and from being one step ahead of my KS3 students.

I think it's possible to sit the modules twice though in order to have enough to cash in to make 5 - DD1 heard of a school where they did that apparently. She thought it was a stupid idea

You can't get five GCSEs from doing triple and dual award.

Once they cash in the Science and Additional Science awards, they disappear forever, and you can't get a full GCSE based on extension modules alone.

Each award has to be made up from unique content. It would be madness otherwise.

mmeblueberry Thankyou. I didnt know whether uni's would look at the double science as the easy option and therfore no matter what mark was achieved, they would dumb it down.

I think when we have DDs next parents evening I will question whether the triple would be her best option if thats what they are pushing for. Although I dont want her to be placed in a group where more children mess around or they are working too slow.

Why cant things be simple

You don't get two of the same grade, Golgi. Science and Additional Science are examined totally separately and they are cashed in separately.

When I was at school I did Double Science and the other option was single science which was all three at a lower level.Is that what they are returning to then?
Although there wasnt the option of doing them individually in our school and didnt know anyone who did them like that from other local schools.

Though in my day we only did 9 GCSEs and you werent expected to have so many A-Cs

sorry wireless keyboard and not checking,they all take 5 science GCSEs and that is how they make it to the top of the league tables,personally I would rather they spent that time playing music or playing a sport but there you are.

By the way at the nearest Grammar to us they do the triple and the duel ...what a waste ofg exam time, and that is how they make it to thetp of the league tables witase,all the boys have 5 science GCSEs

Its not just about ability,some really bright children do the duel award at ds's school.My ds chose it because he wanted to do three humanitiesin addition to the two englishes and MFL that are compulsory,he was pretty clear that he didn't want to do science Alevels and therefore wanted to give himself more choice at A levels given thta we didn't think doing more than 10 was a good option for him.

He has separate teachers for physics chem and biology by the way

All the A level science syllabuses changed about a year ago to simplify them for following on from the easier GCSEs. The current year 13s were the first the take the new syllabuses.

You don't necessarily get the same grade for both GCSEs doing the double any more golgi - that was what used to happen, but now you get a separate grade for science and additional science. Both grades are still a mix of all three subjects though.

will ask DD1 later what board she's doing, but one of her Chemistry textbooks is called Chemical Storylines which I think is also OCR, possibly this one.

" unless the school is following on with the equivalent A level syllabus "
which examing body /syllabus is the equivalent one to take after OCR GCSE ?

DD1 did triple science (21st century nonsense - see previous rants on this sunject ) - double and triple science all did 6 modules (2 in each science), then triple did an extra module in each science which was trickier (and not taught in Physics so DD1 had to cover the stuff herself).
Triple science people got three seperate results for individual sciences, double science people got two Science GCSEs.
Check which syllabus you're doing as the 21st century science one is a pile of poo (IME for bright children), and unless the school is following on with the equivalent A level syllabus, then it's a massive jump from "filling in the missing words" at GCSE to proper A level study.

Those doing double science may still be taught the modules as Biology Chemistry and Physics with a different teacher for each one (if the school has any spare physicists!)

Doing double "averages out" the grades and you end up with two the same - but if you do triple you get a separate grade for each science.

Two sciences at A* is better than 3 at lower grades.

The top universities are counting up the number of A* and screening applications based on GCSE performance.

Just because your DD is being taught the sciences separately now, doesn't mean she is doing triple science. It is all dependent on how the modules are put together.

My DD is in year 9 and in top set. She has been taught the 3 sciences as seperate subjects this year, so Im sure she will have to do the triple science GCSE.

She has a preference to english over maths and science and although Im sure she would do well, I dont think she will come out with 3 A*s by going down the triple route.

So Im jumping the gun here but, would she be likely to get say, 2 A*s as opposed to 3 Bs if she was able to do the double sciences instead.

If so, what would be better on her UCAS form or her CV. She hasnt really got any idea of what kind of career she wants, but Im prety sure it wont have anything to do with science soshe is not likely to do any of them at A level.

The middle part of my post is incoherant (I blame sticky laptop keys)

The hierarchy of learning is a pyramid, with a wide base of facts to be memorised. Above that are the higher learning skills, where you basically take the facts that you have learned and manipulate them to make predictions etc.

If you don't know the facts at the bottom of the pyramid, you can't do the things higher up. But much of the curriculum is asking us to do exactly that. I am really frustrated by the new KS3 curriculum for this reason. The students are sponges for new facts, yet all they are being asked to do is to evaluate experiments that other people (real or fictitious) have done. I am having to add an awful lot of my own material to a very expensive scheme.

You are right that there is a lot of propaganda. The course is just full of the government agenda about Global Warming.

I have to teach this, but go beyond the party line, so that the students are aware of the arguments on both sides and can express each of these coherantly.

They don't really have to memorise a lot of facts. They will often be presented with a graph and asked what the graph tells them.

Looking at the new KS3 curriculum, it's only going to get worse. The National Curriculum is basically ignoring the value of knowledge, and is focussing on higher learning skills. Unfortunately, knowledge (facts) is the foundation of all knowledge, and if you don't know the facts, you can apply or synthesise.

I tend to go way beyond the GCSE specs, especially for my top set which has potential A-level students. If I stuck to the spec, then I would struggle to get them to the point where they could have a good go at the January AS level modules (from Additional Science). It's more stimulating for them too.

I do sympathise with the values behind the new specs and the focus on HSW. It serves the non-scientists well. As mums, we know that we have to have a point of view on lots of scientific issues (natural vs medicalised birth, bf vs ff, vaccinations, disposable nappies, cars, blah blah blah). If I can give my weaker students the critical thinking skills to evaluate evidence that is presented to them and have them come up with a rational point of view, I will feel I have served them well.

It does get better in Additional. The Core was designed for those who are unlikely to continue any further study of science, but has had the effect of being rather tedious for those who want to take the subject further.

It's all getting re-jigged soon anyway, I think.