A battery of questionnaires and interviews with teachers and students experienced in RNAP, produced statistical data on many aspects of the course that leads to some guidelines and suggestions for better use of the course design and materials.
The patterns described in this article relate to the responses of almost 200 teachers and about 100 students who were teaching and studying RNAP course during school year 1987/8. Though many of them criticised some aspects of the course, generally they were very enthusiastic about it and most of the information they gave us was accurate and reliable.
The A-level physics teachers can choose either a `traditional' course or RNAP. We found that most of them don't like to change from one course to another. In the few cases it was done, the reasons generally were like `changing of school', `decreasing number of A-level physics students' or similar reasons. Most of RNAP teachers were keen about the course, its objectives and the way it prepares the students toward higher education as physicists or in other areas. Though pointing out its weaknesses, when comparing it with a `traditional' course, they stress much upon its advantages.
We found a tendency to favour the course for the able student than for the weak or the average one. There was more than a feeling among teachers that the less motivated student can better succeed in a `traditional' course. This feeling became even stronger along the interviews where some teachers pointed out the high proportion of the selective schools doing RNAP, which made it more difficult (according to their feeling) for the average student to get an A or B grade. In some of the teachers' opinions RNAP is less suitable for girls who prefer a more `straightforward' course. It is interesting to point out that more than 50% of the students found the course more difficult than they expected it to be. Only 5% found it to be easier than they had suggested.
Another point to think about is that almost one-third of the students would not choose RNAP if they had the opportunity to do it again (either by choosing another physics course or by neglecting physics altogether).
Some of the responses can be judged better when knowing more about the background of the students. Most of them had finished a preparatory course, either in pure physics or in science, with top grades (A or B). Mathematics too was taken by most of the students and 80% of them were also doing their A-level in maths. Indeed their feelings about the pre-A-level knowledge was better in maths than in physics.
The most frequent allocation of time given to teach RNAP was found to be 8 periods of 35 or 40 minutes per week. It seemed to be that in comprehensive schools (and sixth-form colleges) the average teaching time was 10% less than in selective schools (or tertiary colleges), but there were many fluctuations which created differences of about 50% (between 240 and 360 minutes per week). Most of the teachers agreed that the course was too condensed and that it must be shortened at least by 10% (if the time available for the course will not increase). The most recommended units to be cut were the least successful ones, which seems quite reasonable. Another result of the too condensed course was the poor use of the background materials. Some of them were used rarely and even then, only at home and not in class. On the other side, the massive use of another textbook by students and teachers, could be explained by the style of the Teachers' and Students' Guides. Generally most of the teachers and students were highly satisfied with them, but many would like to see them, especially the Students' Guide, shifted towards a traditional textbook, for example more detailed summaries, instructions, worked examples etc.
The RNAP course has six central aims for achievement. In most of teachers' opinions only two of them were easily achieved: understanding physics and enjoyment. Three of the outstanding aims of the course were difficult to achieve (understanding the nature of physical inquiry, learning to inquire, and being aware of the social significance of physics). An aim like `Developing practical skills' was highly rated by teachers but seemed to be much less important to students. Also the investigation was referred to much more positively by teachers than by the upper sixthform students (who had already experienced it). A suggested reason for this can be that teachers judged the investigation on its ideological basis, valuing its importance in scientific research, while the students were influenced by their actual results which were not always successful. We are not sure that these aims are treated better in another course. but taking into account some of these comments can improve the teaching of the course. In future it might also lead to a better version of RNAP which would be based more on real school situations, the influence of the GCSE and the teacher-student expectations.
