Is the heuristic method of teaching in danger of being suffocated by the IB? The Oxford English dictionary defines heuristic as “enabling a person to learn or discover something for themselves.” I’ve spent my life as a chemistry teacher trying to follow this principle. It is much better for a student to understand chemistry through self-discovery than by the teacher simply providing the information and all the answers. I feel fortunate that this approach to chemistry was instilled in me right from my very first chemistry lesson. I was taught by several excellent teachers at a school (Christ’s Hospital) where the concept of heuristic science teaching was started by Henry Armstrong back in the late nineteenth century.
 

An early heuristic science lesson at Christ's Hospital in 1899 (Image from Christ's Hospital, Horsham UK)

I received my first lesson in Chemistry at Christ’s Hospital in the early 1960s by one of the great advocates of the heuristic approach – Gordon van Praagh. VP as he was known had written a book called “Chemistry by discovery” and the whole essence of the approach was that students carried out experiments “to find out for themselves”. One of my earliest chemistry lessons was to heat copper and observe the red-brown solid turn to a black solid and then being asked to try to come up with a theory or hypothesis to explain it which I was then expected to test practically. Later VP went on as one of the founders of Nuffield science which was taught in many schools from 1965 onwards. He continued to champion science education right up to his death aged 94 in 2003 and just a few days before his death he published  a book, “A Fire to Be Kindled”. This takes its title from Plutach’s quotation, “A child's mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.'

I wonder what Gordon would have made of the recent proposal by the IB to have just one piece of internally assessed practical work which in the words of the recent report on the curriculum review that can be found on the OCC states” The IA task will be one investigation/scientific exploration. The task will allow a wider range of activities than the present traditional hands-on practical investigation. Although a hands-on approach would remain as a possible IA task and the assessment of specific aspects of it could also be undertaken in the written examinations. Some of the possible new activities include using a spreadsheet for analysis and modelling, extracting data from a database and analysing it graphically, and hybrids of spreadsheet/database work."

Is it really too late to try to change the minds of people who are effectively saying that ‘hands on’ practical chemistry can remain as “a possible task”. ‘Hands on’ practical work is the essence of heuristic chemistry teaching and underlines all chemical understanding. I can see that simulations have their place but somewhere along the line it seems to have been forgotten that simulations are just computer programmes written by humans who by definition cannot write serendipity into their programming. How can the new proposals square the concept of ‘the nature of science’ without the requirement for hands on experimental work?

However the final version of the new course turns out I hope that good chemistry teachers will still continue to involve their students in good practical work whether it is assessed or not. As Gordon van Praagh used to say, echoing Henry Armstrong before him “I am appalled by the obsession in schools with tests, grades and now league tables feeling that too many children are encouraged to pass exams rather than to value learning”.