Learning Autobiography - reflections on my experience of learning science

Authors Avatar

Science Learning Autobiography                

Looking back on my science education I have come to realise that during primary and secondary school, I received quite a good backing in the sciences, although this was most evident at secondary school.

During primary school, being as long ago as it is, I don’t really recall any specific details from lessons, especially from the infant years. I do however recall having separate science books during the junior years and as far as I can remember, the school did put quite a lot of emphasis on science. I remember that we did carry out some practical work with circuits and rockets relating to physics and work with plants and pond life in biology, as well as some work on food webs. We also looked at changing states of matter, using water as an example. Here we looked at different forms, ie ice as a solid, water as a liquid and steam as a gas.  At primary school however, I also recall that the amount of time given to science was never equal to that allocated to literacy, arithmetic or even religious education (the school was Roman Catholic). Studying science twice a week for 40 minutes was around the same time allocated to P.E. and not nearly enough as I think should be studied in primary schools!

Moving onto secondary school, I remember at first we were taught science in our mixed ability form groups. This was the norm until the end of Year 9 when, based on the results of the SATS, we would be streamed into one four sets for GCSE. The science department scheme of work was aimed at gaining the AQA Double Award GCSE and did not offer the separate sciences, i.e. biology, chemistry and physics. Set 1, the set I was placed in only studied for the Higher paper and were expected to achieve A*- B. Those who were seen to be struggling would be ‘dropped’ a set by the end of the first term. The Set 2 would be expected to gain A-C but I believe the content was delivered at a slower pace, with more hands on time. Set 2 pupils would study for the Higher paper but would have to option of sitting the foundation paper if necessary. Sets 3 and 4 were foundation only and would generally consist of low achievers, although some of the pupils in set 3 would not necessarily underachieve across the board. It may have been that they were not competent in biology but were at ease with physics and chemistry as they excelled at maths. In hindsight, I think that this was a poor policy for the school to adopt and I think that it stemmed from the fact that in science, everyone, regardless of their ability studied for the AQA Double Award (all three sciences were studied, leading to two GCSEs awarded at the same grade). If singular GSCEs had of been studied then I think that some of those in the lower sets may have been able to achieve higher grades at GCSE, perhaps coming out with one B and one C grade rather than two grades of C.

Join now!

With regards to the teaching strategies adopted, I would say that we were taught in line with Lev Vygtosky’s theories that an experienced teacher is needed to be able to impart the correct knowledge in the correct way and he believed that a child would develop better if assisted by adults, peers or mentors. Vygotsky claimed, “what a child can do with assistance today, she will be able to do by herself tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.87).  I also think that Bruner’s spiral curriculum came into play during my learning, where my teachers introduced topics and then revisited them in cycles to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay