NB 1: This article has been submitted and is to be published in the June Labtalk

NB 2: For clearer definition of the graphs, it is advised to view them independantly using the right mouse button

The main finding of this report is that the proportion of VCE students attempting the traditional sciences (chemistry, physics and biology) has significantly declined over the past decade, while those attempting psychology has significantly increased.

SUMMARY:

 Year 12 Enrolment data provided by the Board of Studies reveals the following trends:

When enrolments in individual subjects are expressed as a proportion of the total student population at year 12 (ie as a proportion of English enrolments), the following trends are observed:

Female enrolments in individual subjects over the past decade show the following trends:

A number of teachers and educationalists gave explanations backed with anecdotal evidence for the observed trends. These included:

• Changes (dilution) in junior curriculum and teaching practices has provided an inadequate preparation for conceptually demanding VCE sciences.
• Student perceptions of the difficulty of sciences.
• The standard of Science Teachers has decreased.
• A perception of a lack of Jobs in science.
• Science has an image problem.
• Tertiary selection requirements.

Although there is little support for some of these suggested causes (such as perceptions of teacher standards), the issue may involve a cluster of complex factors and causes. Clearly this issue would benefit from extensive research and also from debate amongst educationalists, practitioners and the wider public. Priority areas may include marketing and imaging of science (and science education), career guidance and VCE course selection and external influences such as tertiary requirements and the wider cultural milieu.

Enrolment data from the BOS for the period 1985-1998 reveals that most VCE (Year 12) Science subjects had an enrolment pattern that can be separated into 3 distinct stages:

1. Between the years 1985-1990: a steady small increase in overall student numbers

2. 1990-1992: a sharp increase (which seems to reflect the sudden increase in overall enrolments).

3. 1993-1998: an ongoing and significant decrease to virtually pre-1990 levels

NB the 1985-90 student enrolments also include the enrolments for STC, TOP and T-12 in the various subject areas).

The decrease of students from the maximum enrolment: Biology 3957 students, chemistry: 2179 students and physics: 2273 students, represents an overall decrease of 8409 students. Assuming that there are 25 students in a class and a teacher would teach 23 sessions a week (4.5 classes), this is equivalent to the loss of 336 VCE classes or overall the equivalent of 75 full time science teachers from the maximum value.

When the data is presented graphically, the sudden jump (almost a doubling) in the student pool (as represented by English enrolments) is clearly seen to occur at about the time of the introduction of the new style VCE linked with an economic downturn. Yet the increase in the student numbers in the traditional sciences, although present, was not as marked as the change in student pool.

 The sudden increase in psychology enrolments coincides with the tagging of the subject as a VCE science, although anecdotal evidence suggests that the subject is staffed by non-traditional science background/trained teachers.

 If it is assumed that all VCE students are enrolled for English (English & ESL) then the student numbers per subject can be expressed as a percentage of the total VCE (English) population. When calculated in this manner, the student enrolment pattern changes quite markedly.

The enrolment patterns seem to indicate that not only has there been a significant drop in whole student numbers in the traditional sciences over the past few years, but over the last decade there has been a continually declining proportion of the student population enrolling in all of the traditional sciences. This trend is consistent with patterns reported in other states as well as internationally.

It is surprising that the gender composition of physics, biology and psychology are more or less static given the overall changes in enrolments and proportions in each subject. Biology and psychology clearly most attractive to females, while physics was less attractive (in spite of the efforts in promotion and curriculum innovation to attract females to this subject). The proportion of females studying chemistry has gradually increased over the last 10 years and is now consistent with the proportion of females attempting the VCE.

 This question was posed to a number of teachers and also on the internet. A number of replies (n = 31) were recieved, which can be classified into a groups of responses.

 One common reason advanced was the suggestion that most 7-10 programs lack rigour and consequently do not adequately prepare the students for the demands of Senior science. Students often find the demands of VCE science & the standard of work something of a shock as they have obtained inadequate study skills and a poor knowledge base from their previous science education. Thus they don't have a necessary grasp of essential concepts (such as atoms) or know how to revise for content based exams...consequently sciences are perceived as difficult and this message filters down to students selecting subjects in year 9&10.

This suggestion has a certain gut-reaction appeal to it, but perhaps it does not present the whole story... yes our teaching practices, focus and curriculum have changed over the past few years, but the wide perception was that these changes were made in good faith by curriculum writers who believed that they would attract a greater number of students to senior sciences.

Over the past 10 years content wise, the Junior curriculum has changed to a more hands-on integrated science/technology/society approach under the "Frameworks" program. The emphasis on content was decreased and the style of teacher delivery and the student centred "process" approach were important. Schools were supposed to write their own "local" curriculum which fitted the needs of their clients and the expertise of the staff. In many cases schools simply adopted the standard textbooks (which were slightly revised to fit in with the new approach) as the defacto curriculum. It is interesting to see much the same content again repackaged to concord with the Curriculum standards Framework (CSF).

A few years after the "Frameworks" changes, the senior system was radically changed from a one year HSC (final year) to a 2 year (or to be more precise 4 semester) VCE. This entailed massive changes in content and assessment. Units 1 and 2 (Year 11) of virtually all the sciences were frequently criticised for being too soft. Units 3 & 4 (year 12) were also criticised for being too lightweight as content was deleted from the old HSC courses to accommodate new styles of assessment (for example the removal of standard electrode potentials from the Year 12 Chemistry course). With substantial portions of the assessment being more process rather than content based (ie library essays, lab/experiment skills etc) there is a common perception amongst teachers that VCE sciences are less conceptually demanding than the HSC on students.

Granted that there is a hurdle between junior and senior classes, why are the numbers at the senior level dropping now when it is considered "easier" than ever to successfully complete Year 12 sciences? If it is easier, why are students turning away? Do the students believe that the "new" VCE subjects are less demanding? Such questions are difficult to answer without extensive research and also perhaps an analysis of Year 11 enrolment data.

 A few replies suggested that the pedagogical abilities and motivation of (especially young) science teachers were not as great as in the past. It was pointed out that the tertiary selection requiements for science-education courses are always significantly less than for "straight" (or "real") science. Also it was perceived that Science graduates who went into teaching via a post-graduate degree, were in some sense "the ones who didn't make it into real science" or second-rate academically.

 There seems to be little empirical evidence to support the argument of declining standards.

 There seemed to be more than a touch of "those who can do, those who can't teach" and "I had the best teacher... nobody teaches like that now" in the responses received. This seems to emphasise knowledge acquisition (qualifications) rather than communication and interpersonal skills as the characteristic of a good teacher.

 This area of concern touches on our ability to attract the best undergraduate students/people to teacher training, provide them with top notch training, give them support and guidance through their initial years of teaching, and keep them motivated and rewarded for their work. This clearly is a difficult task.

Currently, most Victorian University Education departments have terminated their 4 year combined teacher training courses (eg Bachelor of Education), and are running post-graduate teacher practicum courses of one year (eg Dip Ed) and increasingly two years (Bachelor of Teaching) in length. It may be assumed that graduates with a recognized undergraduate science degree would have a greater conceptual grasp of subject matter than the "old style" science education degree, although it is debatable that this will enhance their teaching ability.

Of special concern is the aging population of science teachers. Over the last 10 years, the number of graduating science teachers has been substancially reduced, and the employment opportunities for these new teachers has been limited by the downsizing of the education workforce. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the great majority of new science teachers obtain employment in country schools on a term by term basis only. This may have significant impact on role-modelling and motivation of students.

Some respondents argued that in the past students acknowledged that science was hard, but they had the idea that "it would lead to a job".... Now though it seems that there is no obvious benefit in taking the more difficult courses.

Studies have shown that tertiary graduates in science have the lowest rates of unemployment in Australia, and experience indicates that students are aware of this (especially in this country which has had such a prolonged period of high youth unemployment). Science teachers have been quick to promote science by setting Year 7-10 classwork requirements on science related jobs. However how can something as remote as "getting a job as a chemist in 5 years time after 5 years of hard slog" compete with the attraction of working at the local fast-food outlet for the pre-requisite teenage disposable income.

Young people acknowledge that a science path is worthwhile, but is too much hard work for what-ever returns they can obtain. It is far easier for themselves to deride themselves as to their ability, than to adopt a mind-set with an "adult" future only after some 5-7 years of intensive study and self-sacrifice.

A number of respondents argued that science is competing against career paths in commerce, IT and the arts. Media coverage is high for these but low for the sciences. It was widely reported that with the rise of the entrepreneurs in the 80's enrolments in commerce subjects skyrocketed. It was suggested that science education should market itself to a greater degree.

A well funded publicity campaign to entice students into science is an attractive notion, but many students role-model from mainstream culture. When was the last time a glamorous/sexy/attractive science student/graduate appeared on Melrose Place/Bay-Watch/Home & Away/Neighbours/etc. When did Oprah/Ricki Lake assemble a panel of "cool" science professionals. The "Age" daily dedicates a double page (A2) spread to the Arts (mainly profiling active creative people), but science is lucky to get a 2 page spread once a week (and rarely is the life of a scientist profiled, rather the focus is on the discovery or award). It seems that the sciences/science education has some way to go before being accepted as part of the mainstream.

 It was argued by some respondents that tertiary institutions set the academic trend in the VCE system, if the tertiary system required more then students would "rise" to meet the occasion instead of finding the easy way out. Currently bonuses are awarded for Maths and LOTE, but only in selected courses for sciences. Some tertiary institutions are making overtures about the level of recognition accorded to some VCE subjects. This raises the question, "to what extent would tertiary selection/TER effects influence a Year 10 student selecting a 2 year VCE course"?

 The proportion of students attempting the traditional sciences at the VCE level is declining. and speculation from a limited sample of educationalists indicates that this trend may arise from the interplay of a cluster of complex causes. Clearly this issue would benefit from extensive further research (including surveying students) and also from debate amongst educationalists, practitioners and the wider public. Priority areas may include marketing and imaging of science (and science education), career guidance and VCE course selection and external influences such as tertiary requirements and the wider cultural milieu.

 The Author invites responses to this article, and further debate through the forum of "Letters to the Editor" in LABtalk. What do you think are the causes for the trends? Should we be concerned about this trend? How can we as science teachers help to reverse this trend?

Grateful acknowledgment of assistance is made to Cherry Andrews from the BOS and also to Chak Synaphet and Emma White from the Research and Evaluation unit at the Board of Studies as well as Ian Tremain at the AEU for supplying the Year 12 enrolment figures. However, the (mis) interpretation of the results are mine alone.

Thanks also to the teachers and educators who responded to my queries.