MS ASHLEY Chan Kway Lan is right that science questions shouldn't have a rigid, standard answer ("Science shouldn't have 'model' answers"; last Saturday). Children should be allowed to answer the questions in their own way.
However, having taught Primary 3 and Primary 5 children before, I would say that the younger the children, the harder it is for them to articulate their thoughts and observations.
They lack the required written and spoken language skills. Science teaching is, therefore, not just about the subject matter but also about imparting "science reporting" skills.
Take, for example, the experiment of using red ink to illustrate osmosis in the roots of a plant. A Primary 3 child would need to learn the words "absorb", "diffuse" ("spread" is the simpler word), "concentrated solution", and so on.
The popular refrain is that children should use as simple a language as possible ("Focus on understanding, not key words, in science" by Ms Elizabeth Tan Boon Kwan; yesterday).
But do the children even know the "simple" words? Can a simple word be a substitute for a more exact one (which is quite important in science)? Knowing which words to use, can these children string them together to form a proper sentence?
It is a challenge and many average children cannot do it.
It is no wonder parents "fear" the subject. They themselves lack the factual knowledge as well as the inquiry and reporting skills necessary to help their children succeed.
The teaching of science is definitely quite different from English and maths. But English can be used to help children do well in science.
Lai Tuck Chong
However, having taught Primary 3 and Primary 5 children before, I would say that the younger the children, the harder it is for them to articulate their thoughts and observations.
They lack the required written and spoken language skills. Science teaching is, therefore, not just about the subject matter but also about imparting "science reporting" skills.
Take, for example, the experiment of using red ink to illustrate osmosis in the roots of a plant. A Primary 3 child would need to learn the words "absorb", "diffuse" ("spread" is the simpler word), "concentrated solution", and so on.
The popular refrain is that children should use as simple a language as possible ("Focus on understanding, not key words, in science" by Ms Elizabeth Tan Boon Kwan; yesterday).
But do the children even know the "simple" words? Can a simple word be a substitute for a more exact one (which is quite important in science)? Knowing which words to use, can these children string them together to form a proper sentence?
It is a challenge and many average children cannot do it.
It is no wonder parents "fear" the subject. They themselves lack the factual knowledge as well as the inquiry and reporting skills necessary to help their children succeed.
The teaching of science is definitely quite different from English and maths. But English can be used to help children do well in science.
Lai Tuck Chong
