From OLIVER PAWLEY
I am a student currently studying for GCSE examinations and I have found,
surprisingly, that history requires more scientific thinking, methodology
and observation that the traditional science subjects: physics, chemistry
and biology.
In history, historical pieces of evidence are analysed, interpreted
and compared to other evidence to form conclusions in a logical scientific
manner – like the results of a scientific experiment. We are told to consider
evidence in terms of how it is limited and how different factors have changed
its content, and how this affects the validity of the conclusions made from
the evidence, as one would consider experimental variables in science. Because
history is like this, it encourages individual thought and promotes interest
in its students.
However, in science lessons we merely sit and receive dictation. We
are not encouraged to understand, question or find out for ourselves the
facts that we are given; we are just told to ‘learn it for the exam’. Admittedly,
we do sometimes carry out experiments, but we are never told to design our
own, and are given instruction sheets telling us exactly how to carry out
the experiment – hardly a way to stretch our minds and get us to think scientifically
about problems as we can in history.
Because science lessons do not encourage individual thought or interest
beyond the syllabus, many students of science find it dull and so do not
pursue it beyond GCSE. I feel that the way we are taught science should
change, concentrating less on facts and formulae and more on scientific
methods and thinking for freer and more interesting learning.
Advertisement
Oliver Pawley Kingsbridge, Devon
