Teaching Science

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Pinterst Science Teacher

Monday, 19 May 2014

Bought Schemes of Work: I expect more

So, I am currently reviewing key stage 3 schemes of work. I have to say that I am not that impressed.

I am in a very fortunate position of not having to worry as much as someone who works in a state school about progress, evidence and monitoring. There isn't a half termly email demanding a progress report. My SLT use the grades we give in the reports we write as that evidence. (Which we do October, December, March and June).

This means that I am looking for a scheme of work with an engaging book, good support materials for the technicians and creative activities. I am really struggling to find it.

Making a poster, answering a 6 mark question (which I could have made up myself), closed question sheets, make a model, fill in the labels on the diagrams, create a presentation with ideas about X on slide 1 and Y on slide 2 etc. Questions like 'write down the names of 10 elements'. Worksheets that require students to write in boxes with no lines, (especially when they could be writing in their books and using the worksheet as a reference and saving paper).

I want more.

I want activities that inspire the students, I want contexts, I want a lesson where the activities tie together, I want lessons that build on the one before, I want something I could not do myself. Apart from the typesetting, I haven't seen this. I want links to real scientists, I want every day applications, I want data, I want examples of good and bad investigations and modelling of good practice when drawing graphs.

I don't want the students to know what onion cells look like before they look at them down the microscope, I don't want them to know acid and bicarbonate is going to fizz before they add them together. I don't want them to know a spring is going to obey Hooke's Law before they stretch it.

But I want something that a) needs more than a few months to put together and b) costs more than I am willing and able to pay.

The cheapest available course it is then.

Monday, 12 May 2014

It's different for girls?

Before I worked in a single sex school I was aware that there were issues getting girls into STEM subjects, and I was aware there were issues in the world where girls didn't get as good an education as boys. But it wasn't something on my agenda. I am female, yet I did STEM subjects, I wasn't put off by being the only girl in my physics class and surely charities will work with those countries where girls don't get an education and help them. I did have the attitude "I did it, you can do it too".

However, my mind and attitude is slowly changing. I think that the women of the world do need to be empowered and supported.

The eye opening started with international day of the girl child. A relative of a girl who goes to the school I teach in pointed it out to the Headmistress and I got the girls to complete the sentence "with an education I can..." and took photographs of their statements in October 2012. Some good, some predictable, some daft, but some inspiring. Last year we did a walk at lunch time. Inspired by this I did some research into the importance of girls' education. http://dayofthegirl.org/girls-denied-education-worldwide/ Now I feel strongly that it is about more than *just* inequality but about better lives for people in poor communities, and educating women is vital to the improvement of the world we live in. That only 30% of all girls are enrolled in secondary school is a shocking statistic.

I teach some Nigerian girls, and I asked one about the girls who have been kidnapped. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27342757 It wasn't surprising really to see the interest from the other students about the topic, that a group would want to stop girls being educated was strange to them, but not unheard of, that they would go to such extremes was difficult for us all to grasp. Although the Nigerian student did add a political dimension to the story as there are elections in Nigeria next year and undermining the current president seems to also play a part.

In January I went to a session about gender imbalances between girls and boys in certain A-level subjects. The IoP report is here: http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/closing-doors/page_62076.html The statistics here are eye opening, and not just for physics, for English too. Why should that subject be so female dominated? I am ashamed that I did think during the session "what can I do, I work in a girls school and girls schools already go some way to addressing gender imbalances, so I don't have to worry", however as the statistic came forward I realised everyone must re-evaluate the way they work with girls (and boys) and the messages they get across about what is appropriate and inappropriate as an academic or career path for them.

I am more aware of the "everyday sexism" that we encounter and we inadvertently spread now than I have ever been, and so I feel that now is the time in my life and career to take a more active stand to support the education and opportunities of girls. The question is how? I suppose the first thing is to get my hand in my pocket and support a charity that gives girls the opportunity for an education: http://plan-international.org/girls/

Sunday, 13 April 2014

Not agreeing with the establishment at all...

I read that I don't agree with the 'scientific establishment' at all.

See this post for details. http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/why-getting-rid-of-practical-assessment.html

Not true, so I better have another go at explaining myself.

Scientific organisations are very worried about the removal of practical work from the formal assessment of A-level sciences. They are right to be worried. My point is that they should have been worried about the changes long before now. Perhaps they were.

The changes reflect a broken, unworkable controlled assessment system. They do not reflect the ideal situation.

Ideally we (teachers, researchers, subject organisations, university groups etc) would work on a curriculum that gave the chance to our 18 year olds of leaving school with the knowledge and skills they need to move on to the next stage in their science education. (Lets assume those doing science A-levels are going to be doing degrees with some degree of science - the destination data says they are). After that curriculum was devised we'd work out a way to assess it.

But we don't. We put in place an assessment regime that assumes all teachers cheat and the proportion of internally assessed marks depends on the classification of the qualification. Then we work back from there to the curriculum.

Wellcome, the Physiological Society, the Royal Society are right in what they say, we must value practical skills along side knowledge in the science curriculum. Score and the ASE responds can be found here: http://www.ase.org.uk/news/ase-news/dangers-in-a-level-sciences-grading-reform-highlighted/

I agree with what Professor Julia Buckingham, Chair of SCORE, said:

“We fully appreciate that reform is needed but the current solution is rushed and does not address operational issues. We believe we can develop workable new approaches but Ofqual has decided to go ahead with an inadequate solution.”

Reform is needed. What I disagree with the 'establishment' is that this reform is worse than the status quo. For me, this change will support the potential for good quality practical work to be carried out.

(Personally I don't believe that score do have a better solution that would be accepted by ofqual or the government.)

Saturday, 12 April 2014

Teachit and their Video Training Day

I have just arrived home after a wonderful training day organised by Teachit. It ticked all the boxes, great venue, nice food, engaged audience and knowledgeable presenters.

In my future list of what makes a good CPD session I need to add 'timely'. Just the previous evening I was discussing flipped learning and getting a lot of encouragement. (See below).

Prior to that I was being encouraged to use Aurama too.

All of this is in preparation for the students at my school having to bring iPads to all their lessons as of September. I want to use this opportunity and I want to ensure that the parents don't feel they have wasted their money. So today's conference came at just the right time.

The day started as every truly great CPD session should with coffee and pastries!

We went into Joe Dale's session at 10.15 and were then organised into our subject groups. We were asked to get into groups of two or three. Joe wanted us in groups of this size because he wanted to ensure all participants had the opportunity to take part.

We started by using popplet to create a storyboard of the film we were to make. I like this app, and it was a good idea to use it as the boxes (popples) are the right sort of dimensions to make you think about a screen. We decided on biology sampling techniques because we were in clifton and had access to the outside and bushes! We then searched the internet for images of things we didn't have because we didn't know to bring equipment, like an image of pooters.

Story boarding took about 20 minutes.

I really liked the idea of storyboarding. I think I would have done it with a class anyway, even without the experience of this session. I have been advised to by my OH. But I appreciated the chance to see how much detail you would want in a story board - not that much - and how it helps your thinking. I would be keen to make students stick to their story board when doing it with them.

I also thought that he story boarding section of the activity would be great for giving students the opportunity to think before doing an experiment, and possibly help develop the skill of writing methods that we need to build before controlled assessments.

After that we went to film the bits we needed for the short video. We did feel a little silly, but Louisa who I worked with was a great sport and she was prepared to be filmed. I also took a few photos to be used in the film too.

Other groups found they took too much footage and at one point I took footage on my iPhone and then thought 'how will I get it onto the iPad?' I know there are ways, but it did seem much more straight forward to just use the one i-device for everything.

Once everyone had returned Joe gave us a quick tour of iMovie. It does seem pretty intuitive. From the point of view of teaching the students I think it will be more about showing them the possible outcomes and letting them workout how they could do it using the menus on the iPad.

The editing was straight forward because we had a clear idea of the outcome from the storyboarding. The room was very noisy, so we left to find a quiet spot to do the voice overs. The editing took a bit longer and the session ended up overrunning slightly. But we didn't mind. One group grabbed coffee and returned to complete their movie.

I can see that offering prizes for 'the best' video might not be productive as it could induce the students to be stressed and change their plan. I would want the video that gets across the message in a straightforward way. I will certainly consider modelling some good and bad examples before letting classes lose on making their own videos.

We also discussed the audience for the videos. (Feedforwardonline might be an answer to that?)

This is the video. If you are reading this and the link is gone - sorry, I may have to clear my youtube account out in the future.

After the coffee break I went into a session lead by James Rolfe, Head of Science at Judgemeadow School. This is when I was completely sold on the practicalities of making videos for use by students.

James showed us example video clips he made of demonstrations and explained how spending five minutes taking a quick video of himself demonstrating an experiment had paid dividends in terms of engagement, learning and behaviour. He found that student paid attention to the video, that they all could see, and that they took on board the advice and instructions in the clips.

Sometimes he would ask a student to video him explaining in class too. Making the taking of videos fairly painless and quick.

I think that I would get nervous and stumble over my words, but I imagine that after making a few videos I would get used it. I also get a bit paranoid over my accent. "Why aye, champion man" in the middle of a video would mean I would have to leave the students to watch unsupervised as I stand in the corridor and wait for it to be over! However, I am encouraged to give it a try the next time I do a class practical. (Year 9!)

James also showed us videos made by the students. No faces meant they could be shared with the world. The school has the iPods that the students use, and they have a science department dropbox account attached, so the videos can be uploaded from each device allowing the teacher to view them all. I can see how the videos that students make could help to spot misconceptions.

Having been to a lot of literacy sessions about encouraging students to talk before writing I can see how videoing an explanation of the work that they are doing will really help the students to get their idea straight before having to commit their ideas to paper.

Before the end of the session we had a go at making a one-shot video clip ourselves. That is the clip at the top of this blog post. I can certainly see myself doing that more often.

After lunch we went into a Q&A session, and then we discussed the resources that people might want to make that could be uploaded to teachit. Interestingly a lot of the discussion in the groups I was in (and I think in others) was about how a lot of the engagement achieved by using videos is from them being of staff in the school of those watching. This is something I want to consider as I make and use videos in class.

I am ver excited now by the prospect of the students having and using iPads in lessons. This is a CPD session that will have a big impact on the way that I teach. Thank you to Teachit, Joe and James.

Thursday, 10 April 2014

Why Getting Rid of Practical Assessment Might not be the Disaster Organisations Believe.

I see the RI, Wellcome Trust and the Physiological Society responding to the announcement that there will not be internal practical assessments in A-level qualifications. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2014/WTP056222.htm and http://rigb.org/about/news/spring-2014/ofqual-response and http://www.physoc.org/press-release/2014/ofqual-sounds-death-knell-uk-science-education. They are not happy.

I can see their points of view I really can. But I can't agree with them.

I am an educator absolutely determined to create future scientists and prepare them for this career. I am determined that all my students will understand the nature of science. I want them to understand that science is a practical activity as it is the study of the world around us. Even as a theoretical physicist myself, who spent the end of my degree working at a computer, knows that ultimately we need to take observations of the real world to compare our hypotheses/theories to.

I really wish Wellcome, the RI, the members of SCORE and the other organisations and universities that have concerns spoke up before now. I wish they had stopped controlled assessment. This is what destroyed practical work in secondary schools.

I remember the free investigations that our edexcel candidates used to do at the end of Year 12. Some struggled, but most students really got into it. I remember talking to a more experienced colleague about it as you could tell that these investigations often caught her imagination too. She told me of a student who worked out an equation to relate the number of clubs he could juggle with and the height he'd have to throw them. Real science. I remember helping students to clear up after a leak of the oil she was using after school as she was putting in a lot of extra time to complete the investigation to the standard she wanted. Her friends were helping and the passion and enthusiasm were obvious.

That is gone now. All of this was destroyed by controlled assessment. The exam board set a list of practicals, and everything has to be done in class without communication between candidates. It isn't scientific investigation. It is awful. It isn't science, it's hoop jumping.

I didn't want to do an experimental physics degree. I did practical exams for my A-level physics practical assessment. I was put off by the practicals. I must preferred the chemistry project. I used the labs and took responsibility for the way I worked and when I worked. This is what we should be encouraging in our students.

Controlled assessment destroyed all this. Wellcome, RI, Physiological Society where were you when this was happening?

It is obvious that we are not allowed to go back to free investigative work. The government don't trust teachers. Yet, it is also obvious to teachers that the status quo with respect to controlled assessment is not acceptable either.

I say to organisations such as Wellcome, RI and the Physiological Society put your energy into ensuring we have GCSE and A-level curricula that lend themselves to being learned through access to high quality practical work, and support teachers through spreading the message of good pedagogical approaches to practical work.

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Teachers and Research

I remember reading something by Lucie Golton about the reason behind her teaching toolkit booklet. She scoured the books looking for the magic bullet and ended up compiling a long list for her own pedagogy strategy booklet. (Unfortunately I can't find a link to it at the moment).

I also spent may career looking for the magic bullet. I like concept cartoons, I love key word card sorts, I like using true/false worksheets and my favourite way to help students learn is by getting them to draw graphs. I have taught CASE, I have taught the Upd8 segue course (http://www.upd8.org.uk/wikid-tick.php), I have taught bonkers courses designed to fit into the timetable more than based on sound pedagogy. I came into teaching during the time of the strategies. I have read books, I have taken advice from ASTs, I have used ideas shared by fellow teachers and I have worked with consultants. In all that time I haven't been able to work out if I am doing the right thing.

Now it seems that we have been doing the wrong things as a profession. If the whole profession has been doing the wrong things then I must have be too.

To solve this teachers need to interact directly with the research.

1. Really?
2. How?

I went to Tim Oates session at the ASE conference about the future of internal assessment in science. I got the gist, don't get me wrong, but as Robin Millar was nodding to the things Tim Oates was saying I was pulling faces in a desperate attempt to understand. The language Tim Oates was using was completely foreign to me, it was specialist.

I can appreciate the need for specific specialist language in education research. I am a scientist, I use specialist terms all the time, and I spend a good proportion of my time trying to get my students to use the language precisely too. The difference seems to me that in educational research there is no common language, like in science.

If I am to interact with research first hand then do I need to learn specialist terminology?

I went to Michael Reiss's session the year before and he said that Piaget style curricula were very effective at promoting learning. (Or something like that, but I did understand what he was saying!) I said this on another teacher's blog in a comment and was shot down because we shouldn't listen to anything we are told, we have to find out for ourselves as respected education researchers can't be trusted.

Do I have to interact directly with the research? Is it enough to interact with the researchers? After reading "Teacher Proof", maybe not is the answer. Someone has to look at the original research because there are some people out there not doing a very god job at carrying out their research and there are others who are simply fibbing as it suits them. Confirmation bias is a big issue in education it seems.

I am going to be honest here, I don't trust other teachers to carry out research (sorry as if you are reading this you are likely to be a teacher). I have seen data for masters projects (and action inquiries) made up. I have seen a school sell ideas to other schools saying it made a difference when there was no causal relationship between the two and months later that school scrapped the curriculum. It makes sense for schools and teachers to be positive about the changes they make. Why make them if they are not going to make a difference to their students?

I am not the only one who felt this. At the ASE January conference I went to a session host by Wellcome and the SLC that was a debate. One of the questions was about research. On our table the SLC employee was determined that the action research she supports through the SLC was valid, I was on the opposite side of that. Another group also mentioned their dubious feelings about research carried out by teachers, although perhaps not so negatively as me!

Perhaps unscrupulous research is just something we have to cope with?

Or perhaps it is enough to interact with the researchers?

I am fortunate in my position to get journals through the post. School Science Review, Physics Education and Science in School. I am fortunate that my head teacher will allow me to attend ASE conferences. I know some excellent university based educators and researchers. They are very generous with their time. They are happy to share what they know.

I have said this before, Stella Paes said at the ASE summer conference that the UK has world leading expertise in science education. (Granted she may have been talking about assessment of science education as that is what she needs to know about).

Is interacting with researchers through journals and conferences how I should interact with research? What if they are wrong? During my PGCE we were encouraged to look at VAK, it was presented as if it was a good way to differentiate. Should I be put off by this? Trust no one? Or do I have to interact with the research directly? Back to square one.

I do know that there is appetite within the profession to work out what works in the classroom. There are a number of issues with it. Expecting to find something new that will be the magic bullet . Finding the balance between private organisations who have an interest in selling CPD related to research is another. Implementing the pedagogy as the research intended isn't always easy, either.

However, as a profession we have to know that what we are doing and how we are doing it is the best way to get across ideas to young people. Without research and analysis we'll never know. Teaching and research are linked. What that link should look like in practice? Well, it probably needs to be researched.

Pages