̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - GCSE

Changing Course on Climate

plc32 — Fri, 09 Feb 2024 12:01:02 +0000

̽��ֱ��global publishing and assessment arm of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge is calling on teachers in 160 countries to help improve climate change education for nearly a million 3-19 year-olds.

Opinion: ‘Difficult’ Latin risks remaining a qualification for elite pupils

Anonymous — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 12:20:21 +0000

In a recent column for ̽��ֱ��Telegraph, Angela Epstein branded Jeremy Corbyn as “too thick to be prime minister”. ̽��ֱ��basis of this accusation was the Labour leader’s two Es at A-level, among his other academic adventures. In a world where jobs are won on the basis of experience and networks, one might expect Corbyn’s A-levels – taken in the late 1960s – to be ancient history. Yet the fact this argument can be made in a national newspaper shows that school qualifications matter long into one’s life, and are expected to stand for something.

Indeed, qualifications matter so greatly that the Department for Education has for more than a year now been consulting teachers and other interested parties about the reform of GCSEs. ̽��ֱ��final stages of this reform is still underway, and the government is explicit about its intention to make these qualifications “more academically demanding and knowledge-based”.

A key shift in policy is the move to measure schools’ performance or progress primarily on the basis of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc), the achievement of pupils in English, maths, science, a language and history or geography – rather than English, maths and three other subjects, as has been measured previously.

What this shift appears to acknowledge by focusing on “academically demanding” subjects, is that grades at GCSE mean different things between different subjects. Not all GCSEs are directly comparable – and those which do not make it into the EBacc are understood to be absolutely “less demanding” as courses.

Certainly, this is backed up by research. In a working paper from 2006, Robert Coe of Durham ̽��ֱ�� undertook a study of GCSE subjects using a statistical model developed by Georg Rasch, a Danish statistician of the mid-20th century who specialised in psychometry. It was a comparison of the likelihood for success in different GCSE examinations, based on a pupil’s ability. Coe’s findings are graphically represented below:

Relative difficulty of grades in 34 GCSE subjects ordered by difficulty of grade C. Robert Coe, Author provided

̽��ֱ��general disparity between subjects is clear. But as Coe comments, one of the most striking things about this data is just how difficult Latin appears when compared to other subjects: it is about as difficult to get a grade C in Latin as it is to get a grade B in chemistry, or a grade A in sociology. One is further able to group subjects between those on the left-hand side of the median line – science, technology, maths and engineering subjects, languages and humanities – and those on the right-hand side, which are more vocational in character.

Degree of difficulty

It is important to remember that this is no reflection of any inherent easiness or difficulty in a subject: sociology would not exist as a degree or research specialism if one could not think about it on the same level as Latin or chemistry. What this data instead shows is that these GCSEs test different levels of skills, some of which may be more readily acquired in a lower number of contact hours and some of which take more time.

Pupil achievement appears to be measurable only in relation to the expectations for an individual exam, rather than across all GCSEs. As a result, these grade levels also reflect the typical profile of those taking these exams. In Latin, data from the Cambridge Schools Classics Project suggests that 97% of the candidates taking the examining body OCR’s Latin GCSE are in the top third of the national ability range. What this means is that a profile similar to the sociology GCSE would be useless for classing candidates.

What these profiles really reflect, however, are the groups one would have expected to take these subjects in the 1950s the peak of grammar school education. Vocational subjects, which one might imagine transplanted back into secondary modern schools, could be taught with the expectations of 16-year-olds mastering skills at one level down from the average grammar school student, studying the subjects on the left-hand side of this chart.

While both grammar school pupils and secondary modern pupils would have studied maths, history and other subjects now on the EBacc, secondary modern pupils would typically not have learned Latin: the preserve of those at grammar or fee-paying schools. Those at the top of their sets in these schools, hoping to gain entry into Cambridge or Oxford, would be the ones for whom it was most important to be qualified in Latin, which was a requirement for entrance into both of these universities until 1959.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Today, in spite of this legacy, it can no longer be assumed that the average Latin learner is at the top of the ability range for their school. Since 2000, the numbers of schools offering Latin has increased dramatically, with reportedly 50,000 pupils starting to learn the language each year. For what must be the first time in Latin’s history in the UK, the majority of schools offering Latin right now are non-selective state institutions. Yet, despite this, the numbers of entrants into the OCR GCSE qualification have declined steadily since 2000. We have a situation where more and more young people are interested in Latin and the ancient world, but ever fewer have a qualification to show for it that will survive the current reforms.

Latin has long been defended as a difficult GCSE on the basis of the challenge it offers to the brightest 16-year olds. But as long as qualifications matter, it should be a concern for us all that the middle-range of schoolchildren in this country are put into a situation whereby Latin is inaccessible to them if they want to achieve that “good” rating of A*-C on their CV and they don’t have the opportunity or time to join an after-school club.

If Latin continues to function as a badge of distinction for those at the very top – an A* more impressive than every other A* – then it is a subject that can never belong to everyone. It remains a tool for social elites, with resources of extra contact hours, study time and tutoring, to be classed on their own terms – to the detriment of those now interested in the subject who never had access to it at school before.

This is an edited version of a talk delivered by the author at the Cambridge Festival of Ideas.

Francesca Middleton, Lecturer in Classics (Greek), ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Francesca Middleton (Faculty of Classics) discusses the reform of GCSEs and Latin's reputation as an academically demanding subject.

General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale ̽��ֱ��

Childrens talk, English & Latin : divided into several clauses

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Post-16 education must be reformed to tackle damaging arts-science divide

cjb250 — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 08:14:26 +0000

Education sits at the heart of our society – and politicians know it. When Tony Blair famously said “education, education, education” it was essentially an election slogan. We are constantly told by our politicians that English A levels are the “gold standard” in education. I say, maybe it’s time for a rethink.

At the heart of the problem is the early specialisation in post-16 education. As a practising scientist I like to think that I can at least have some understanding of any science story presented in the news. But for a large proportion of the population that isn’t the case; our society almost seems to believe that the situation is a virtue. If a politician says “I never could do maths” no one thinks “Philistine”, whereas if they admitted to never having read any Shakespeare or Dickens the reaction would be very different. Why does our society think this is OK?

Science underpins so many decisions; political and personal. In our daily life and jobs, we increasingly need to use quantitative skills: the ability to interpret graphs, utilise spreadsheets and manipulate data. Our national academies recognise this, with a recent report from the British Academy to go with last year’s Vision report from the Royal Society, both calling for all students to continue with some form of maths post-16.

This issue cuts both ways of course. Scientists need to be able to write and communicate better. Whether or not they can quote chunks of poetry, ancient or modern, is not the point. Scientists need to be able to write lucidly and put their work in context. Just about every branch of science is going to touch on the human condition and they need to be able to understand what their research means for the public. Some grasp of history, literature and social science could help them communicate this.

So in my upcoming Presidential Address to the British Science Association, I will be urging politicians to reconsider the structure of our post-16 education. England and Wales are unlike almost all other developed countries in our early specialisation. This leads to a damaging divide between arts and science.

Maybe we could learn a thing to two from Renaissance artists like Leonardo da Vinci? wikimedia

Implicitly, at the point of choosing GCSE topics, a 14 year old will see themselves heading off in one direction or the other. Schools sometimes appear to encourage this, perhaps for the simple reason of easing the timetable. A broader post-16 education would mean moving from the typically narrow choices of A levels to something akin to the European Baccalaureate system (or perhaps the Scottish Higher system), where more subjects are studied for longer.

̽��ֱ��teaching shortage

Of course, all this would require an adequate supply of qualified teachers. Currently, however, we neither have enough teachers entering the profession nor staying on for long subsequently. This is a massive problem in many subjects.

In primary school teaching, many schools have no one qualified in science or with a maths degree (the Vision report says only 3% and 5% of primary school teachers have maths and science degrees or specialist teaching qualifications in those subjects respectively). In turn this creates a confidence problem: teachers who haven’t looked at a maths problem since they were 16 are expected to teach numeracy skills they may feel unsure about themselves.

This problem is particularly acute when there is no one else with more relevant experience in the school to whom they can turn for specific advice. This is no criticism of the teachers themselves, but, when teachers have to teach beyond their own areas of confidence and competence, it is harder for them to stimulate the children and to answer their questions.

In the sciences a related problem occurs at secondary school. Teachers may be science teachers, but if their qualification is in biology it is tough for them to teach GCSE physics. Again, this is not meant to apportion blame to the teachers. ̽��ֱ��Institute of Physics has suggested we need 1000 more physics graduates a year entering the teaching profession if we are to reach a situation where a third of science teachers are qualified in physics – and it would still take 15 years.

To do this would need around a quarter of all physics graduates training as teachers each year. It is hard to imagine that happening, particularly given the level of salaries graduates can otherwise command.

England has this strange habit of splitting our children up into arts and sciences at an age when hormones are surging and peer pressure is liable to be at its most powerful. We should be pressing the government to modify our system so that all children keep studying a broad range of subjects post-16 – and providing adequate funding to do so. In time this would translate into primary school teachers with more confidence to enthuse the next generation in maths and science.

Furthermore, this change would empower everyone to be able to make better-informed decisions about the things that affect them in their everyday life and to make sure that day by day people are able to cope with the numeracy requirements of their jobs with confidence.

Athene Donald is Professor of Experimental Physics and Master of Churchill College at ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Why is it acceptable to say “I never could do maths” but not “I’ve never read any Shakespeare”? It’s symptomatic of the art-science divide that can only be addressed by reforming our education system, writes Professor Athene Donald from the Department of Physics and Master of Churchill College.

Pete

Testing Times Ahead

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Use of TV, internet and computer games associated with poorer GCSE grades

cjb250 — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 07:00:21 +0000

In a study published today in the open access International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, researchers also found that pupils doing an extra hour of daily homework and reading performed significantly better than their peers. However, the level of physical activity had no effect on academic performance.

̽��ֱ��link between physical activity and health is well established, but its link with academic achievement is not yet well understood. Similarly, although greater levels of sedentary behaviour – for example, watching TV or reading – have been linked to poorer physical health, the connection to academic achievement is also unclear.

To look at the relationship between physical activity, sedentary behaviours and academic achievement, a team of researchers led by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge studied 845 pupils from secondary schools in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, measuring levels of activity and sedentary behaviour at age 14.5 years and then comparing this to their performance in their GCSEs the following year. This data was from the ROOTS study, a large longitudinal study assessing health and wellbeing during adolescence led by Professor Ian Goodyer at the Developmental Psychiatry Section, Department of Psychiatry, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

̽��ֱ��researchers measured objective levels of activity and time spent sitting, through a combination of heart rate and movement sensing. Additionally the researchers used self-reported measures to assess screen time (the time spent watching TV, using the internet and playing computer games) and time spent doing homework, and reading for pleasure.

̽��ֱ��team found that screen time was associated with total GCSE points achieved. Each additional hour per day of time spent in front of the TV or online at age 14.5 years was associated with 9.3 fewer GCSE points at age 16 years – the equivalent to two grades in one subject (for example from a B to a D) or one grade in each of two subjects, for example. Two extra hours was associated with 18 fewer points at GCSE.

Screen time and time spent reading or doing homework were independently associated with academic performance, suggesting that even if participants do a lot of reading and homework, watching TV or online activity still damages their academic performance.

̽��ֱ��researchers found no significant association between moderate to vigorous physical activity and academic performance, though this contradicts a recent study which found a beneficial effect in some academic subjects. However, both studies conclude that engaging in physical activity does not damage a pupil’s academic performance. Given the wider health and social benefits of overall physical activity, the researchers argue that it remains a public health priority both in and out of school.

As well as looking at total screen time, the researchers analysed time spent in different screen activities. Although watching TV, playing computer games or being online were all associated with poorer grades, TV viewing was found to be the most detrimental.

As this was a prospective study – in other words, the researchers followed the pupils over time to determine how different behaviours affected their academic achievement – the researchers believe they can, with some caution, infer that increased screen time led to poorer academic performance.

“Spending more time in front of a screen appears to be linked to a poorer performance at GCSE,” says first author Dr Kirsten Corder from the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) in the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge. “We only measured this behaviour in Year 10, but this is likely to be a reliable snapshot of participants’ usual behaviour, so we can reasonably suggest that screen time may be damaging to a teenager’s grades. Further research is needed to confirm this effect conclusively, but parents who are concerned about their child’s GCSE grade might consider limiting his or her screen time.”

Unsurprisingly, the researchers found that teenagers who spent their sedentary time doing homework or reading scored better at GCSE: pupils doing an extra hour of daily homework and reading achieved on average 23.1 more GCSE points than their peers. However, pupils doing over four hours of reading or homework a day performed less well than their peers – the number of pupils in this category was relatively low (only 52 participants) and may include participants who are struggling at school, and therefore do a lot of homework but unfortunately perform badly in exams.

Dr Esther van Sluijs, also from CEDAR, adds: “We believe that programmes aimed at reducing screen time could have important benefits for teenagers’ exam grades, as well as their health. It is also encouraging that our results show that greater physical activity does not negatively affect exam results. As physical activity has many other benefits, efforts to promote physical activity throughout the day should still be a public health priority.”

̽��ֱ��research was mainly supported by the MRC and the UK Clinical Research Collaboration.

Reference
Corder, K et al. Revising on the run or studying on the sofa: Prospective associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and exam results in British adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity; 4 Sept 2015.

Each extra hour per day spent watching TV, using the internet or playing computer games during Year 10 is associated with poorer grades at GCSE at age 16, according to research from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Parents who are concerned about their child’s GCSE grade might consider limiting his or her screen time

Kirsten Corder

Al Ibrahim

365.060 - Watching TV

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Every hour you spend in front of a screen is linked to poorer exam results

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 23:10:20 +0000

By the time they are teenagers, more than two-thirds of young people are not doing enough physical activity. Teenagers spend an average of eight hours every day sitting, with 11 to 15-year-olds watching nearly three hours of television. Most of us are well aware that such behaviour risks damaging their physical health, but there’s an additional problem. I have been involved in a new piece of research which suggests that too much screen time is also harming grades.

We measured the physical activity and sitting time of 845 teenagers at 14.5 years old, using a sensor that measures movement and heart rate. We asked how much time they spent watching TV, playing computer games, going online, doing homework and reading. And at the end of year 11, when these students were 16-years-old, we collected their GCSE results.

We found that teenagers with higher screen time had lower GCSE grades, even when we took account of differences in homework and reading. Television, computer games and internet use were all associated with poorer academic performance, but TV viewing was the most detrimental. For every hour that someone watched per day, they showed a drop of nine GCSE points in total – the equivalent of two whole grades in one subject (or for example, one grade in each of two subjects). Two extra hours was associated with 18 fewer points.

Although we did not find that more physical activity was associated with higher grades, as some other studies have suggested, it was not detrimental to academic performance either. It’s important that this message isn’t lost among the findings about screen time: schools are under so much pressure to improve exam results that many don’t prioritise PE and other opportunities for physical activity for fear that they interfere with academic achievement.

̽��ֱ��case for 60 a day

̽��ֱ��wider picture is that most teenagers are failing to meet the recommendations of doing at least 60 minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity each day (activity that makes you sweat and breathe heavily). This needs to change if we are to develop a more rounded approach to our children’s education. Behaviours developed in the teenage years are likely to persist into adulthood, and we need to take every opportunity to improve the nation’s health by tackling high levels of physical inactivity across the population.

There are many reasons for young people not taking enough exercise, which will differ for each individual. Teenagers are often given a bad press about being lazy but I don’t believe that, and we should resist the temptation to blame them. Even as someone who studies and promotes physical activity, for example, I find it hard to fit it into my day, and it certainly wasn’t a priority for me at school.

In our research, we asked teenagers how we could help them to be more active and sit less. ̽��ֱ��overwhelming response was that they didn’t want to be sitting around, but lacked opportunities to be active in a way that interested them. They wanted more variety and choice about what activities they tried, telling us that the limited range of school sports was putting most of them off. This dislike of PE in high school could sour exercise for life. Offering a range of non-traditional activities – from martial arts to zumba – over the usual football or netball could encourage young people to take more exercise.

A related point is that while many strategies have focused on educating us about the health benefits of exercise, it looks like that doesn’t work. We need to change the way we pitch the message instead. Researchers and practitioners need to find out what motivates people and use that to convince them to be active instead. For instance one fascinating study paired adult men with Scottish football clubs for a weight loss and healthy-living intervention. ̽��ֱ��programme succeeded in encouraging this hard-to-reach group to improve their health because it tapped into these men being fans of football rather than health benefits.

Not fine to recline. Jeff Wasserman

Be lean with screens

Put this all together and a win/win answer begins to emerge. So long as homework and reading time are protected, schools and parents should be looking to encourage teenagers to swap screen time for physical activity. And in a multi-screen world that teenagers navigate frequently without supervision, we will need to become more sophisticated about how we guide the amount of time they spend in front of screens and what choices they make instead. Encouraging a good variety of physical activity and tapping into what makes them tick rather than speaking endlessly about health benefits looks like a good place to start. Achieve this goal and it looks like the way to maximise academic achievement and reduce health risks at the same time.

We also need to think about what happens in future. Screens are proliferating and we’re not going to get rid of them. Nor should we want to – the worlds that young people can access through screens can educate, inform and enrich their lives, from nature documentaries to Minecraft. And with more and more activities moving online – including educational resources – there are many unanswered questions about how future generations may adapt. For now and the future, the challenge is to get teenagers more active so that once they’ve done their homework, the last thing that they think of is sitting in front of a screen.

Kirsten Corder is Senior Investigator Scientist at ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

We need to think about how our teenagers spend their spare time, writes Dr Kirsten Corder from the Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, whose research has shown that even an hour a day of TV and internet use is linked to poorer GCSE grades.

flash.pro

Evening watching television

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution