What is the history of science education in UK? What suggestions would you make for countries such as China to follow?

Science education is very important in secondary school in the UK. However, it was not true for primary schools at first. Actually, science wasn’t taught in primary schools for a long time. Children learned Nature or Science Magic instead. These subjects mainly tell pupils about plants and animals, seasons, and things like this. I went to study as a teacher because I found teaching young children very exciting while taking science with me.

Things changed for the better in the 1960s. In 1965, Lord Nuffield, a carmaker sponsored a project which is devoted to teaching science to young children. Teachers were quite excited about this. Unfortunately, nothing much happened.

In 1989, the new national curriculum came out with three major subjects: English, Math and Science. That is, every English child would have to take Science exams at all grades across the UK since 1989. The test results would have a tremendous influence upon their further education. Science suddenly became important, more important than history, Geography. And Science teachers suddenly became very useful. They formed a strong community in promoting science.

We have made lots of mistakes in science education, which I hope can be avoided by China. First, we tried to do far too much. That is, we tried to let students learn a lot at the very beginning. As science is enormous, we should only focus on things that interest children. Teachers should carefully choose materials. Second, we let secondary teacher tell us what we should do at the primary level. It makes all kinds of problems. Primary students have difficulty in learning difficult concepts. In fact, students have to see concrete things, handle real things at first. Gradually, they can learn more difficult things. Real learning comes from real things. That is, students have to learn from easy to difficult.

Do you think what’s more important in science education, science facts or scientific methods, or which is more important for students to acquire?

Science facts and scientific methods are equally important. Science facts are the basis. Without them, students would find it very hard to find or discover for themselves. On the other hand, scientific methods are about how to discover, and can serve as a helpful tool in doing experiments and developing critical thinking. So teachers should encourage students to study not only the science facts but also the methods.

In modern world, life changes very fast. And the knowledge of science can constantly change. For example, we used to believe that light travels the fastest. However, particles have been discovered that appear to travel even faster than light. That is, what we have known may be out of date someday. From this perspective, scientific methods seem more important though we need to know the basic facts.

Also, science is not common sense. It is always surprising, extraordinary, exciting and magical. Teachers should be careful in giving examples. For example, “why does a tree get bigger and bigger? Where are the materials from?” Students may ask such questions. As we know, trees get big mainly because of photosynthesis. The solid wood of a tree was once water and carbon dioxide.

Children come to school with their own ideas about the way the world works. Once I asked students why it is getting dark at night. The following is their responses:

The moon / Clouds come(s) in front of the sun.

The sun goes out.

The sun is a long way away from the earth.

The teacher of science should present them with activities and experiences that challenge their ideas and encourage them to develop an understanding of accepted science ideas. Then children may use the basic knowledge to challenge evidence. We don’t encourage students to accept things as it is. Giving children practical experience of testing their ideas is critical to their development.

What’s the purpose of science education in your opinion?

We can’t live in the world without understanding of science. Science is very essential to us and helps us better understand the world. The purpose of education is not to train every student to be a scientist, but to learn how to cope with problems in our daily life. After all, science is all around us. Once I went to a nursery school, the teacher there said, “We don’t do anything about science. They are too young for that.” But I saw children making models, playing toy bricks, etc. Actually, these are science experiments. A firm grounding in science and a logical approach to problems, will enhance every child's understanding of the world around them and enable them to contribute fully to a technological society. Take bird flu for example. If we have some basic knowledge of science, we would realize that it’s much more likely we shall die of heart disease or a road accident.

You have been teaching science to young children for nearly forty years and writing about it for twenty. How does your teaching experience help with your writing?

I always learn from children. Actually, I learn more than I teach. Science is about questions. Some of their questions are very productive. I collect some good ideas from pupils, then write them down in the textbook. Sometimes, they teach me some new phrases. I’ll adopt some good words and even some of their drawings in the books. Also I know my students very well, so when I choose science materials for the books, I know what material are right and able to challenge their thinking.

What’s the theory that supports your New Star Science? Or ideas?

You mean the philosophy behind it? It has two great strengths; first, we have defined the key facts that children need to understand to make sense of science. These are highlighted throughout the books. Then we’ve got a New Star Science Skills Ladder, which helps children develop their science skills as they work through the scheme. First we need to match the children to their level: more able, less able and the middle. We try to ensure students at different levels do the right things. Second, we divide the scientific process into three phases-- planning, obtaining and presenting evidence, considering evidence and evaluating-- and while the emphasis may vary, all three parts are present in a whole investigation. Planning is very important and teachers are responsible for it. This part includes: 1. asking questions and having ideas; 2. deciding an appropriate approach; 3. planning the detail of what to do; 4. predicting what might happen; 5. choosing what equipment to use. Obtaining and presenting evidence is actually the “doing” part. It includes: 1. using equipment and carrying out practical work safely; 2. making observations and taking measurements; 3. presenting evidence. Considering evidence and evaluating is the “reviewing” part. It includes drawing conclusions and describing patterns and trends; 2. comparing results to predictions and making further predictions; 3. explaining evidence; 4. evaluating. All the materials center around this ladder to ensure knowledge and skills come together.

As we all know, New Star Science is one of the most widely used science scheme in the UK. Is there a Star Science before this series? What have you done in updating the series? What’s its USP?

Yes. I’ve been working with Ginn since 1984. Before the National Curriculum came out, I worked on ‘Ginn Science’ – named after the publisher; then on “Star Science”. As new models were brought in and the ideas moved on, teaching materials and time had to be trimmed, hence New Star Science.

New Star Science is very popular among students, well, first I think it conforms to the National Curriculum. It’s very comprehensive. Second, it has got a growing structure. It goes over the same materials but with a higher concept / skills level. Third, it’s got very attractive illustrations and content. In order to attract their interest and to add variety, other features such as poems, riddles and stories are demonstrated at different grades. Fourth, the words match the children. We always try to keep the language as simple as possible. Some words have everyday and science meanings, like key, table, fair. In case they are misunderstood, we always give full explanations from the children’s perspective. Fifth, we equip the book with a rich teacher’s resource. Teachers are very busy people. For example, in Teacher’s notes, we designed “QUESTIONS” to challenge children and provide “POSSIBLE ANSWERS” for teachers’ reference. Also the “BACKGROUND INFORMATION”, etc. All in all, we provide simple notes but easy management.

What areas of science are touched upon in the series? How do you structure the science materials?

This series covers natural science, materials and the physical science. The structure of science is like the fingers of your hand. The three familiar content areas --- the natural sciences, materials and the physical sciences --- are like three long fingers. There is a little finger concerned with the history, applications and development of science, and the thumb without which the hand is useless – scientific activity – especially investigations, the skills area of science.

What advice would have for a Chinese publisher who wants to publish science course books for primary school students?

Well, first comes the importance of language. The language adopted in the book must be familiar to young children. Second, you have to decide on which skills / facts to build knowledge up. You’ve got to break skills down into manageable chunks so that children learn at the right pace. Third, facts are always good to be interesting, related to their daily life, more important, able to challenge their thinking. Children like reading some horrible, silly facts, unusual facts or things that are quite unexpected. You may write down such things as well as unlikely things, fun facts, etc. to arouse their interest.