A: PREAMBLE

The Board of Studies in it's review of the VCE, Enhancing Their Futures (December 1997), made 33 recommendations regarding:

• The structure of the VCE
• Curriculum
• Assessment and reporting 1
• Accreditation and Benchmarking
• Information Technology

and

• Implementation

As a consequence of this review, the VCE Science studies have been restructured and the content of each study rewritten. Major changes to all Science Studies include:

• Changing work requirements to learning outcomes
• Changing Common Assessment Tasks to School Assessed Classwork

It is disappointing that (although some members of the course review teams are STAV individual members) STAV has had no input or consultation in the review/rewriting process for the Chemistry 2000 Study design. Indeed, we have been unable to ascertain the membership of the review panel even though we made a number of representations to the BOS.

It is also of concern that we were given little time to consult our members and frame a response to a document that appeared to be close to a "final" version. The version we obtained was "discovered" on the BOS web-site on the 6th of October 98 and STAV received formal notification of the consultation documents and an invitation to participate in the response process on Monday 12th of October. STAV has been asked to complete a response by the 19th of October 98.

The consultation response from the BOS structures a response under the following areas:

• Course design (clear definition of a body of knowledge & skills, progression between units)
• Content (comprehensiveness and appropriateness)
• Outcomes (clarity of expression and encompassing all areas of the study)
• Assessment (are the tasks appropriate to demonstrate the outcomes?)
• Workload (is workload appropriate)
• Other (comments and concerns)

The STAV Chemistry 2000 Review Reference Group has framed a response that espouses the areas requested but is reluctant to partition it into the suggested sub-headings.

B: General Comments about VCE Science Studies

STAV believes that the VCE should be:

• Inclusive of gender, culture, attitudes and ability of students
• Incorporate local knowledge and issues
• Have a Science Technology Society/Problem solving context
• Be not restrictive and overly proscriptive

STAV also maintains that VCE science curricula must:

• Be able to be resourced by all schools
• Be able to be taught in a realistic time frame ·
• Encourage good teaching practice and not reduce the methods of teaching and learning
• Reflect the precepts of the Blackburn (1983-4) report. ·
• Provide for all students of all abilities and prepare students for all mainstream future educational pathways

The STAV Reference Group posed a number of questions

• Can a Year 12 Science Subject be both a tertiary entrance mechanism and an attempt to promulgate science to future citizens? (especially given the absence of an alternative for non-tertiary science-oriented students until 2001)
• Does the assessment of the subject reduce the diversity of teaching and learning?
• Does the assessment focus exclusively on the "tertiary oriented" students? ·
• Given that students are not enrolling into tertiary sciences, why should a VCE subject cater for an intellectual elite?

The STAV Reference group noted that, on first glance, the proposed Physics and Chemistry Study designs emphasised assessment issues over other pedagogical issues, and did not advise teachers how they could address the aims of the course.

It was noted that CAT 2 had been removed from the proposed course and had been replaced with "Learning Outcomes" that were assessed by teachers. It appears that the implication is that authentication of student work would not be an issue as all work should occur under the direct supervision of the classroom teacher. STAV has some misgivings with this approach:

• it appears to be fairly open to abuse from student cheating ·
• less able students could "slipstream" by pairing up with capable students
• Teachers under pressure to emphasise content and exam preparation could turn the pracwork into second hand data manipulation exercises, or "Virtual" experimentation by software or Internet access.

STAV has a strong belief that if pracwork is emphasised, then measures need to be taken to ensure that students do "hands-on" primary data gathering and not data manipulation exercises.

The reference group was dismayed that the chemistry and physics documents had no focus on modes of learning and the styles of learning of individual students.

CHEMISTRY 2000

C: Overview:

The STAV Chemistry reference Group had a number of significant concerns with the proposed study design.

The consensus of the STAV Chemistry reference group was that the proposed study design pays lip service to Science in a social context, and does not adequately cater for a range of student interests and abilities. Indeed it was clear that the proposed Chemistry Study Design caters for tertiary "pure science" orientated students to the exclusion of other students.

It was also the consensus of the group that the syllabus was dull and ignored the proposition that science is a creative process.

The reference group had serious concerns about the thrust of the "Learning Outcomes" listed.

• They seemed repetitious - how many times do students need to prove that they can write a report or perform a titration?
• If students, teachers or schools wish to evade the system - then they will
• Much of the practical work is dated and antiquated, indeed it is irrelevant to modern industrial practices - for example titrations, wet analysis, use of Bunsen burners etc.
• Little diversity of tasks, and what diversity there is killed off by the repetitious nature of the tasks

There was strong concern about the bureaucratic demands and time constraints imposed by the pracwork aspects of the Learning outcomes - especially at Year 12 (with 9 significant prac activities in a semester). If teachers cover the pracs as stipulated, it will cut significantly into the time that teachers believe they have available for content coverage. This adds pressure for teachers to treat the pracwork as second-hand data exercises, or perhaps some tertiary institutions will cover all the prescribed pracs in a one day session (much like they do now for the instrumental analysis Work Requirement), both of which STAV believes to be undesirable. Concern was also raised about teacher record keeping demands, and "make-up" classes for absentee students that would significantly add to teacher workload. STAV notes that such a system was (briefly) in place for the English GSE and the American AP systems, however both systems dropped this approach (after only 2 years for the GSE) when the inherent problems became clear.

There was also strong concern about the return to the 60's model of "Student as Scientist" Mimicking Scientists does not serve the majority of scientists (eg see RISE 1989 (19) pp 300-310). STAV believes that experimental work is not the same as "research" or problem solving. It would be more acceptable if the concept of "pracwork" was broadened to become the Demonstration of Concepts that would include not only pracwork, but debate, role-play, creative writing etc.

It was noted that there were many contextual elements stated in the study design, but the assessments (as stated) emphasise the quantitative & conceptual aspects and overlook the contextual. It was noted that 7 aims of the course are listed as dot points on page 1 of the study design, but the consensus of the reference group was that most of these dot points are not addressed by the published assessment (an emphasis on dot point 2, and perhaps some of point 3 & 4). The reference group believes that it is not responsible for stated aims of the course to be not addressed, and strongly urges the BOS to give teachers the time, opportunity and incentive to do so.

D: Individual Units in the Proposed Study Design

UNIT 1:

It was felt that this unit was reasonably acceptable, it had a diversity of assessments and reasonable context.

There was some concern about the lack of linking between the 3 units presented - this appears to reduce the coherence of the unit and subsequently the inherent meaning. There seems to be no apparent reason why the 3 parts of the unit (materials, water and surface chemistry) should be put together. The reference group recommends that an up front approach should be adopted and links are made explicit in Course advice. suggests that a thematic approach or some overarching activity be used to unify the disparate bits of the unit.

The reference group makes a strong recommendation to BOS that a thematic map be included in the study design that shows the connections of, and between larger principles be included for each unit for the benefit of teachers and students. Also advice to teachers on how to implement the study design should be integrated in some way into the study design.

UNIT 2

The assessment of the unit does not match the key ideas of this unit. Much of the contextual aspects of the unit have been excluded from the assessment (eg "the importance of acids and bases in our environment" is listed as a Key Knowledge, but is not included as part of the Assessment tasks on p20).

The reference group was concerned that the dot points under the areas of study were virtually identical to the outcome statements (this was also noted for units 3 & 4). It was felt that such an approach may be reductionist and emphasised "content" knowledge - the student shows they know concept X, by demonstrating knowledge of concept X.

Unit 3

The reference group had serious concerns about possible disadvantage of country schools and poor schools inherent in the resourcing of the content of this unit. By restricting the industrial applications to sulfuric acid and the petrochemical industry, significant bias may occur. STAV believes that a diversity of interests, background and resources must be allowed. The reference group strongly urges the inclusion of industries such as wine, breadmaking, dentistry, hospitals (haematology), cosmetics, dairies or even supermarkets as "electives". Each of these examples can relate equilibrium yield to rate and unit cost. There was also concern about the selection of sulfuric acid, as the majority of this substance is imported.

There was also significant concern about the examples chosen, as they reinforce the stereotype of chemistry as being responsible for the "bad nasties" of modern life.

If there is open access to unit 3 Chemistry (ie no prerequisite chemistry 1 or 2), the reference group asks why stoichiometry is introduced in unit 2? We would be more comfortable with either no stoichiometry in unit 2 with open access to unit 3, or a separate "mass and mole - measurement in Chemistry" is added to unit 2 with no open access to unit 3.

There was some regret at the significant repetition of concepts and contexts in unit 3, and the lack of diversity of tasks.

The organic chemistry seems preoccupied with carboxyl compounds - perhaps inclusion of ethers and amino functions would assist in the food chemistry in unit 4. Systematic nomenclature of 1-10 Carbon backbones seems to once again place emphasis the tertiary track students over others.

Unit 4

This was felt to be more of the same, very disjointed with little linking and the STS nature stated but not addressed nor assessed. The reference group was concerned that if peak bodies such as the RACI believe that the periodic table ought not be covered in VCE, and as it was covered in the study design as an afterthought, perhaps it need not be covered at all.

Once again it was clear that the assessment does not address the aims of the course and the contexts (eg batteries, electrosynthesis of aluminium etc) are dry. The reference group believes that energy can be addressed in more interesting ways such as:

• Energy in living things
• Selective membrane technology
• Nanotechnology
• Electron transport chains (eg in plants)
• Hybrid car technology

Some of the Learning outcomes seemed inappropriate eg on p38 "at least one experiment constructing … [a] fuel cell that models a commercial cell".

The STAV Chemistry 2000 reference group consisted of:

• John Werry
• Susan Rodrigues
• Deborah Corrigan
• Robert Roe
• Jo Sadler

Additional comments by Chris Haymes (Westbourne S. C.)