New, Draft, Primary Science National Curriculum

Primary Science Draft Curriculum Link

Reading the draft version of the new national curriculum only proves to me how much I don't understand about primary science.

I don't particularly have an issue with the topics that are in the primary curriculum with a few possible exceptions, for example the evolution of the human skeleton and respiration. There seems to be enough for the students so they don't get too bored repeating topics.

I am from the generation of teachers who stuck closely to the QCA units when teaching key stage 3. As a result I will admit that I prefer someone else (a company/outside body) to write my schemes of work for me and I will improve them afterwards. With that in mind as a possible limitation, I am struggling to visualise the transition from the intended (draft) national curriculum proposed by the government and the attained curriculum. This is because I feel the words "identify", "describe" and "explain" a misused so it isn't clear what the students should understand about the topic in the end.

There is also confusion in my mind about the principle that the students must all know the aspects of the curriculum before the class can move on. What will this look like? What happens if you inherit a group from a teacher who didn't manage this?

The other two questions I would like to ask are: How does the national curriculum allow for differentiation? With levels we can teach the same topic to different depths and, to my mind at least, using levels encourages teachers to develop thinking during lessons. And how does AfL fit into the new national curriculum? Again I like the levels, and in particular the APP grid, to help me and my students have a consistent approach to knowing what to do to get better. Although I can probably still do what I have been, just avoid using numbers.

There seems to be quiet a lot of prescription of the activities: The notes are guidance are quiet detailed. This brings me to wonder if the curriculum has been written not from the point of view of what the students should understand, but from the activities that the government would like to see students doing. The worst schemes of work are put together this way, in my experience.

Is it world class? Above all, I don't think that the primary national curriculum is a significant improvement on what we have. To me it does not appear to produce students who will be significantly better than the students I currently inherit from primary schools.

I am quite nervous about the key stage 3 & 4 national curriculum.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Bristol

Why don't as many girls study science and in particular physics as boys?

I read with interest a letter in the June 2012 edition of School Science Review about the topic of addressing the lack of girls in physics.

Do girls dislike physics because we don't teach a curriculum that appeals enough to them? Should physics include more references to the way that it can help people and be less about nuclear bombs?

I would agree in my experience girls do find physics less relevant to them and their lives. The context of the forces module in OCR Gateway is transport; we often use firing guns as an example of momentum. Is it fair to constantly link physics with these more traditional applications? What are the alternatives?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Gloucestershire

Embedded Formative Assessment

Embedded Formative Assessment is a term used by Dylan Williams. it means monitoring the student's progress during the lesson.

This is something that I want to check happens in the lessons in the science faculty at my school. Questioning and using tasks to promote discussion with students and between students.

But if it isn't happening how do I support staff into bringing this into lessons?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Types of Curriculum

I have heard this referred to before, but wanted to document the different aspects to the curriculum:

There is the intended curriculum, which is what officials say should be taught. The implemented curriculum, which is what teachers teach. And the attained curriculum, which is what the students learn.

I don't think that many teachers would deny that there is a difference between what the national curriculum says students should learn and what they actually learn. But how far away from it can we actually stray before it becomes unacceptable?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Improving our controlled assessment results

One thing I am certain of is that doing the same thing again (crossing or fingers and sailing very close to the wind) is not going to improve controlled assessment results. I don't like to use this phrase, but we have to train our students to pass them.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily as it does require students to be exposed to a variety of situations that will make them thing, compare and contrast, all thinking skills they would benefit from developing anyway. And it will mean we do more practical work and data work.

How will I train students to do well in their controlled assessment? And how will I ensure that the whole faculty are able to implement what I want?

I believe that the students should be exposed to each section of the controlled assessment mark scheme in chucks, and in a variety of ways. Doing it themselves, looking at other examples, and deciding on their own idea of what is a good piece of work. I think looking at work and being able to make up their own mind about the quality is important as they will have to decide themselves in the "real" controlled assessment.

We need to be very clear in our own minds about the language of measurement and correct the use of these key words in the work and conversations of the students. The conversations of students right from year 7. I just hope that the key terms and their meaning will remain fixed as this constant revision of the meanings causes unnecessary issues.

I do think that the new science GCSE is not easier than the previous ones, and it is much harder than the course I completed in 1996. The controlled assessment is a real step-up from the POAE we used pre-2006. I am starting to think a written exam would be preferable to the hell that is controlled assessment.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Rudgleigh Ave,Easton-in-Gordano,United Kingdom

Conferences - open source?

A colleague was chatting to me about running a Saturday conference, run by teachers for teachers. This would be a natural progression from a teachmeet, giving a whole day instead of a few hours.

Another colleague has set up something similar in York during the summer holidays. She has organised a date using an online meeting scheduler.

Is it possible to plan an "open source" conference?

Is this only possible when a few people are involved so costs are low and faces are known? I would suppose that after a certain number the "delegates" will no longer realise that the conference is about good will and start complaining about the standard of the tea and coffee and the accommodation or a particular speaker.

The teachmeets I have been to have either been very professionally run or they have been small enough that informal was the approach required. Could a group of people turn up and just see what happens for a whole day?

The only thing that worries me is whether we are encouraging the government to believe that teachers can and will work on their own professional development in their own time, so we end up with even less holidays, and those with family commitments are frozen out from CPD.

Having said that I am very excited about our tweet-up in York in August.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Rudgleigh Ave,Easton-in-Gordano,United Kingdom

Displays

I was recently asked the question as to whether I knew if there had been any research into the impact of displays onto student learning. I don't.

To my mind the impact would be very difficult to measure, as too many other factors would have an effect to be able to collect any valid results. That doesn't mean to say that I don't think the classroom display is important.
There are certain difficulties to achieving good display work. It is very difficult to get a professional feel to the displays in school science laboratories. The time it takes to arrange the displays is often used for marking and preparation. Sometimes it is difficult to get students to create eye-catching and well composed poster or freeze.

In our department we have three display boards. One as you enter, one as you go up the stairs and one at the top. What to do?

Below is the display board as you enter the department:






I have updated it this week and they girls do find it attractive and have looked at it. I will be interested to see how it impacts on their attitude to science.

I owe much of the inspiration to Future Morph, well worth a look if you need information regarding STEM careers.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Bowldown Rd,,United Kingdom