While this thesis is not a specific examination of A level Physics education it is a context through which the reform process can be considered. Already issues within Physics education have been discussed in the chapter ‘Why reform A level Physics?’. The educational reform has been painted in relatively general terms so far, but with the involvement of subject specific groups and HEIs who are involved in a process in order to “allow a smooth progression from A level to a degree course” (Smith, 2013, p. 5). In addition to these broad contributions, the Smith report offered a potential opportunity that subject groups and HEIs could avail themselves of, using the reform process to alter the A level Physics course in order to tackle some of the issues that they face.
The outcome of the Smith report was to rate Physics as requiring “minor but substantive change”, the second of the three categories outlined in the previous section. The report went into detail about which changes should be made and these were to:
“• Resolve issues about assessment of practical skills
• Exemplify mathematical skills and agree on assessment weighting • Work with other sciences to agree assessment objective weightings • Resolve tensions with emerging physics GCSE”
(Smith, 2013, p.8)
The latter of these two points are technical aspects, but the first two presented are key areas that reports before and during the initial stages of the reform process all highlighted (Royal Society, 2011) (Institute of Physics, 2011) (SCORE, 2012c). These were now being agreed by Professor Smith as two areas that needed to be considered during the reform, but no other aspects that had been identified (such as progression rates or demographics) were included. It could be argued that this is because they are unable to be solved by educational reform, but if not mentioned as an issue, then when would they otherwise be tackled by the groups responsible for education?
The Smith report considers that “The evidence has identified a requirement for A level students to have stronger mathematical and numerical skills” (Smith, Independent Chair’s report on the review of current GCE ‘specification content’ within subject criteria - A report to Ofqual, 2013, p. 8) yet “If the new A levels are perceived to be explicitly increasing the mathematical content in a range of subjects, there is a risk that candidate entry in those subjects will fall” (Smith, Independent Chair’s report on the review of current GCE ‘specification content’ within subject criteria - A report to Ofqual, 2013, p. 9). The suggestion made by the exam boards here is to deal with a potential drop in student
numbers by producing a list of mathematical skills relevant to teachers of each subject and, in Physics, “showing how that skill can be embedded in the subject, while making it clear that the mathematics underpins the entire subject” (Smith, Independent Chair’s report on the review of current GCE ‘specification content’ within subject criteria - A report to Ofqual, 2013, p. 11). Producing material for Physics teachers regarding the place of mathematics within Physics (even if the goal is that this be shared with prospective students) is curious as it suggests that these teachers did not already know this, or consider it to be true.
Alongside this, the report makes a second recommendation to ensure that 50% of all Physics assessment should involve mathematical skills (ibid). The Physics percentages determined by SCORE were that Physics exams contained between 47% and 63% already (SCORE, 2012c), however the Smith report concluded that by eliminating questions lower than a GCSE level, more higher level mathematics questions would be included. There was, however, no data suggested from any participant, nor in the SCORE report that exam papers were asking questions involving questions lower than GCSE mathematics, just that they were not specifically prohibited (ibid)
Finally, regarding practical assessment the report makes it clear that at this stage of the reform process there was no agreement as to what form practical assessments should take in A level physics, or indeed if there should be any practical assessment at all. It noted how HEIs and learned societies called for an increase in practical skills, but that there were arguments whether the assessment of these skills should be internal or external, and exam- or classroom-based “while still maintaining a method of assessment that is robust” (Smith, Independent Chair’s report on the review of current GCE ‘specification content’ within subject criteria - A report to Ofqual, 2013, p. 9). The exam boards had the opportunity during the Smith review process to work together and arrive at a consensus decision. Because they had not done so, this decision was passed to Ofqual, who would ultimately announce a decision in April 2014 on the same day that Michael Gove accepted the conclusions of the Smith report.
With regards to Physics specifically, the following content changes were proposed:
• “The addition or making more explicit: - Newton’s laws of motion;
- projectile motion;
- principle of conservation of energy;
- radian measure of angle and angular velocity;
- mechanical properties of matter (stress, strain, energy stored); Young modulus, force-extension graphs)
- interference;
- electrical and gravitational potential and changes in potential energy. • Two elements of content proposed for deletion:
(i) the qualitative treatment of free and forced vibrations, damping and resonance, because these cannot be addressed satisfactorily without a quantitative treatment, which is not within scope
(ii) appreciation that E=mc2 applies to all energy changes, as it is understood that it
has never been examined, and “appreciate” is not amenable to assessment. • Changes in relation to the mathematical requirements:
- identifying uncertainties in measurement and the use of simple techniques to determine uncertainty when data are combined;
- changing the subject of non-linear equations - solving quadratic equations
- distinguishing between instantaneous and average rate of change
- solving equations involving rates of change - interpreting logarithmic plots - use of small angle approximations.”
(Smith, 2013, p. CII-V)
The views of physicists and educators are important in considering these topics, and this will be done so later, but it is worth noting for the moment that the report does not explain how aspects from the first bullet point should be made more explicit to those exam boards where they are already included (or what exactly should be taught if they are being
introduced for the first time). Where the DfE wished to reform A levels, the changes to the Physics specification take up sixteen statements, less than 200 words, but do not explain the level that is ultimately required of the A level course, and eliminate consideration of E=mc2
because it is not “amenable to assessment” (Smith, 2013, p. CIV).
Regarding specific assessment decisions the changes suggested were minor. An examination structure to provide the governments requirement for decoupled AS and A level courses was readily confirmed by the awarding organisations (ibid) as this was already the case in the current offering by the exam boards. In the ‘assessment objectives’, the phrase “how science works” was suggested to be replaced by “working scientifically” and “knowledge
and understanding” was suggested to be replaced with “knowledge with understanding”. As well as being minor changes the former was not present in the assessment objectives later published by Ofqual, and the latter specified change was not made. Changes to the
weightings of the objectives were also minor where applying knowledge was adjusted from 35-45% across the Physics exams to 40-50%, and analysis of data was adjusted from 20-40% to 20-30%. These limits were followed by one exam board, AQA, which did not change the existing weightings at all as they were already within the overlap (AQA, 2014).
As previously mentioned the conclusions of the Smith report were accepted in April 2014, and subject recommendations published, but the initial report was sent to the Secretary of State for Education in July 2013. In the intervening time further consultations took place regarding a number of issues relating to the reforms, including one on the initial report recommendations outlined above.