Triple Science or Double Science. Am Confused!

[RatherBeOnThePiste]

In my day it was not like this and am really confused.

If you are good at science you are put in for triple science which is physics, chemistry and biology. So you get three separate GCSEs. Am I right so far?!

What then is double science? Because it seems to
me that ypu still study p,c and b. Or does the interpretation of this lie with the school?

At our schoolthey don't get a choice, they are put in for one of the two.

It's a whole new world to me!

I think its a good thing that children are offered the chance to continue science to 16 without making a choice to specialise - I'm sure it has increased the uptake of science A levels.

But with regards to muddleduck's point, I don't think it is solely down to teaching if pupils aren't getting high grades. DD1 took the old edexcel double science which involved straight forward questions on each topic and a exam in the summer of year 11 covering the whole syllabus. She got two A*s and went on to take Biology A level and is in her first year of a Biology degree. DD2 took the Science and Additional Science GCSEs which as far as I could see was an exercise in "understanding what on earth the question is looking for". Instead of asking kids about vaccinations and immunity they would be given a conversation between various friends (all with various politically correct names) vaguely related to the science topic and they have to decide who is stating the correct information. DD2 would try and make the question harder than it actually was and would proceed to get the wrong answer despite being fully capable of understanding the science. I think she also felt less prepared for moving on to Science A levels than her sister did.

Of course in the ever changing world of education DS will do something different from his sisters. He will take triple science without any choice in the matter.

"I'm sure it has increased the uptake of science A levels"

You'd be wrong there. Numbers taking Physics A level have dropped by 40% in the last 20 years & Chemistry numbers are down too. Quite a few University science departments have had to close due to falling numbers too.

Not entirely sure why, but the A levels are percieved as hard compared to other subjects & that puts some off. I also suspect the garbage in GCSE science puts a fair few off as well.

Well I meant it increases the uptake compared what it would have been if pupils had to choose at 14 not compared to past levels . Certainly science A levels are popular at DD2's sixth form.

Oh and I think everyone in DD1's Biology A level class went onto study science at university - why? because they had a fabulous teacher who was inspiring (and bonkers!)

I am very much in favour of keeping post 16 options open at 14 too actually and think that in that respect the GCSE science structure is quite good.

RatherBeOnThePiste, you might be surprised to know that there is actually nothing stopping you doing just one science at GCSE in the way the exams are structured. Just sit the papers at each level for that subject. But I think the NC strongly encourage (maybe even mandates?) that children do a mix of sciences so it is very rarely a choice offered in schools these days. I do know one girl who is doing just GCSE Chemistry & not Biology or Physics, but she is at an independent school & I've not heard of it in the state sector.

Mine are both doing triple science and exams certainly aren't longer - they are spread out in a modular basis and mostly seem to be 40 mins! So if you don't do as well as predicted you have the chance to retake.

DS's school is a good state comp and around a third of the pupils take triple science.

Most of the rest take double, with the really non-academic ones taking single science.

webwiz
does that explain the students who are doing better in the "additional science" bit compared with the "science" bit?

yes Muddleduck - they've got the hang of the stupid style of question by the time they take the additional science

oh I see - so it is to do with the timings of the two papers. [dim]
so is the content really that different to the individual sciences? I had (naively) assumed that it was at a slightly lower level of difficulty but basically the same sort of stuff.

(I only know about OCR!)The Science GCSE is usually taken in year 10 with 9 modules (3 per science) and some coursework and a paper based on pre released material. Then additional science is taken in year 11 with an additional 9 modules, coursework etc. To make them into individual sciences you just need to add one more module of each science. The level of content in all the exams is equivalent whether doing one science, additional science or triple its just the extra work of fitting it all in means the triple is only offered to top sets or is instead of an additional option choice.

AQA is easier to understand, but comes to the same thing in the end but with fewer modules (I think).

'Science' comprises 3 papers (biology 1, Chemistry 1 and Physics 1) and an ISA (Internal Assesment) which can be in any of the three subjects. Our school does one ISA in each subject and uses the best. Usually all exams and ISAs done in year 10.

'Additional Science' 3 more papers (biology 2, chemistry 2 and physics 2) and another (slightly harder) ISA, again in any subject. Our school again does one of these ISAs in each subject and uses the best. Usually done in year 11.

'Biology/Physics/Chemistry' All need the relevent papers 1 and 2 (as above) an ISA in that subject and a paper 3 in that subject. In our school the people doing separate sciences sit the paper 2s in Jan year 11 and the paper 3s in June (whereas the 'Additional Scientists' just sit the paper 2s in June). No extra ISAs are needed for the separate scientists - they have already taken 2 in each subject and the best of these is chosen.

There probably is another piece of coursework (written up experiment, internal assessment or whatever description is flavour of the month - I think its all controlled assessment in school rather than coursework now) to make the double into the triple. I never did get the hang of the coursework element - you could use a bit of the science GCSE work for the additional science.

DD won't have a choice as it is determined by set, and as it stands now this will be triple for her, but then she may also pursue science further.

cat64 I did o levels too, and they were much more straightforward

I thought grammar schools were supposed to be about providing high qualith education. What on earth would they stop a vhild studying one of the sciences merely because of a predicted grade. that's not education that's massaging the league table position - if the poor child has jumped through all the hoops to get in why should,kt they study what they want be interested in???

Webwiz - I found my bright students had exactly the same problem with Core Science (AQA) - they were over thinking the questions.

Additional Science has a bit more Science in it, so they weren't tripping up over all the opinion stuff and trying to second guess the examiner.

Core Biology at AQA was more like a PSHE lesson - eat a healthy diet, don't take drugs, don't damage the environment....

All the human biology stuff is in Additional, the heart doesn't turn up until Triple and the eye isn't in there at all any more.

Hence reports like this one:

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/gcse-science-dumbed-down-says-exa m-watchdog-1655350.html

Ah, sorry, will try to put that link in properly:

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/gcse-science-dumbed-down-says-exam-watchdog-1655 350.html

I wouldn't say that Additional Science was any different in the difficulty or authenticity of concepts.

While topics may look like harder concepts by their titles, they probably have more 'How Science Works' to balance out anything that is hard.

Do the students have to back up opinion with facts, evidence, theory?

Surely the students by GCSE are fed up with all this healty eating stuff which they will have had since reception class. I am amazed not that everyone get A* but that anyone does in what sounds like tedious propaganda dress up as biology.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.