This was the headline this morning when I read the news on my iPad NZ Herald app from the NMSSA (National Monitoring Study of Student Assessment) report. I wanted to share my thinking about the report.
The NMSSA reports are what NEMP used to be. People head around the countryside testing students in various curriculum areas and then these results are assessed at Otago University.
The article quoted Chris Duggan, House of Science, as stating that primary teachers lack confidence in teaching science and there is a 'huge lack of resources'. It was great to see that the study clearly disagreed with this. Teachers are confident, believe they have the resources they need, and are teaching science regularly. I was disappointed to see her also saying that science advisors are 'long, long gone' -we're not! The job description has changed a little ('facilitators' rather than 'advisors') and all across the country there are skilled, enthusiastic and able facilitators working with every type of school! Although in the 'old days', you simply rang up an advisor and one came out to support your teaching, there are still those opportunities today. Yes, it's a little more lengthy, but every school can apply every term for as many hours and as long as a period as needed for PLD customised to their needs.
The article stated that there are no assessments in science. NZCER have been doing a great job, first with the science engagement tool, and then with creating a Year 4-6 online assessment Science Thinking with Evidence (STwE). The Years 7-10 STwE continues to be useful to intermediates and secondary schools. Using the STwE, schools I have been working with have seen achievement being far higher than the '20%' NMSSA are suggesting are behind curriculum levels at a Year 8 level. NZCER also have the Assessment Resource Banks with a range of activities to support teachers in assessing science.
So what might be happening? Students are keen on science and reasonably confident. Teachers enjoy teaching science and believe that they are focusing on the nature of science strands as well as being confident in the context strands.
I know that the House of Science are doing a great job at getting science kits into schools and ensuring that everything in the kit is ready to go... rather than the good ol' electricity kit on the shelf with flat batteries and blown bulbs! The Sir Paul Callaghan Science Academy is working with teachers developing capability, as well as providing science resources. The Royal Society's Science Teaching Leadership Programme is also available supporting teachers in developing an understanding of how science works and then supporting teachers back in the classroom. Doesn't sound like there's a lack at all! Oh, and there are people like Anne Barker and myself working with schools too!
I left the Science Learning Hub until last on purpose... because I really like the changes they've made to become more effective in supporting teachers. You see, I'm not sure kits, unit plans and lesson ideas on their own are going to help teachers. It's about shifting pedagogies. The folk at the SLH not only share great resources, but they also host webinars and can give one on one advice. I think this is one of the big keys -we must be about the how we teach science, as well as the why, before focusing on the what!
So it's not going to work with just resource kits or people heading off for courses. It also won't work with just getting in great facilitators (!). And this is the second key -the doing science. The article talks about the crowded curriculum as well as the focus we've had on literacy and numeracy. So how do we ensure science is happening? Can we integrate it with reading and writing? Can maths lessons incorporate some science? This year, I've noticed a clear difference between the schools that are deliberately doing science and the schools that haven't had the time. The STwE results clearly show a better improvement to schools who set aside the time for science. Even though I might be working in both sorts of schools, the PLD and resources are simply not enough. We need to be clear about the need for science, the purpose of science and setting aside the time to do science. I'm happy that even the schools I'm working with who don't manage to do a lot of science still see improvements in student achievement -it's just not as marked as schools that set aside time for science.
Finally, teachers need to know what science looks like at different levels. With a curriculum that has Levels 1 and 2 the same and Levels 3 and 4 the same or similar, as well as a set of science capabilities with no levelled expectations, it can be difficult to know what science might look like at different levels. The Assessment Resource Bank (arbs) and STwE can help with this. I tend to use the Progressions for literacy and mathematics as a starter, as well as getting teachers to look at the STwE questions to get some idea of what science might look like at different levels. Talking to the Year 9 science teachers can help too -what are their expectations? What would they like children to come 'ready and able' with?
I must admit being surprised at the results, particularly the Year 8 data but it does reflect international monitoring as well. I hope that it isn't quite that bad and certainly my work with schools doesn't show averages quite that low. I do think we need to be setting aside specific time to teach science, using resources (unit plans, kits, and people!) as well as understanding why we teach science, to continue to improve the achievement. Integration is part of the answer but not the only one. The most important one is already there: you teachers!
So, have a great break!
Thank you for reading these posts (if you're still here of course!) and I so appreciate your support, encouragement and enthusiasm as well as comments! Here's to a great 2019!!!
Paul
Monday 3 December 2018
Thursday 22 November 2018
Play, Explore and Deliberate Acts of Teaching
This week I've been in Opotiki modelling and co-teaching and having a lovely time with great teachers and a bunch of children who get very excited for science (although being a bit mad helps too -me, not the teachers!). I'm thinking this will be one of the last blogposts for the year. Can I just say thanks to those of you who have emailed me, commented in the blogs or chatted with me when I have visited schools. It really does help to know there is an audience out there that wants to connect and discuss this stuff further!
Two things really shone out for me from the lessons that I thought I'd share with you.
The first was a lesson we did from the Connected Fact or Fiction article on Pseudoscience. We started with a science board whole class reading activity and then the next day did the experiment exploring how much fat is in regular chips and non-fat ones. What was interesting was watching the children carrying out the experiment. We had talked beforehand about being methodical and careful with measuring and doing the investigation and on the whole they were. However, watching the children reminded us of the need to be giving them more opportunities to carry out experiments by themselves with less input from the teachers i.e. reading the experiment carefully. We also talked about the deliberate acts of teaching that is needed to support students in reading and carrying out procedures. They may need to be taught how to read carefully through the steps, not skipping bits as well as reading why they are doing the experiment and the expected outcomes. Children may not necessarily get better just by doing lots of experiments -they may need chances to talk about how to do the experiment as well as why we need to follow the steps. I know it might not seem like rocket science (no pun intended!) but in the busyness of the lesson we can forget!
The second moment came from working with intermediate age children and Lego. They were investigating whether they could affect a vehicles travel speed or distance by adding weight or aerodynamics, etc -it was their choice of variable. We discovered that we hadn't left much time for 'play'. I had leapt straight into the lesson but the children wanted the chance just to play, pull apart the cars and rebuild them as well as do the experiment. Most didn't start with recording but if I mentioned it, they immediately grabbed a book and recorded the data well. The teacher and I ended up talking about whether we should have had a chance to 'play' first with the ideas, perhaps a half hour lesson but still encouraging that scientific thinking with their efforts and then the next day, doing the lesson again with an emphasis on scientific thinking and behaviour -which, when I asked the children during the lesson, were all well aware of -they were just too busy to remember! This did happen a little with the first lesson too -we noticed they were very excited perhaps because we hadn't done much of this kind of science before. All were keen on the experiment and were aware of how to act -they were just enjoying the lesson and the experience too much!
Again, that whole idea of needing to allow children the chance to play and explore is really essential. As is the need to be deliberate about how we teach science so that they grow that understanding of what science is. I had a fantastic week at the school and watching the way all the children responded in science was heartwarming. I love it when the PLD is working!
As always, keep an eye on my Facebook page for pictures and videos and the odd extra idea, search for "science happening NZ". The latest lesson was sent out this morning all about paper flowers and capillary action.
Keep on sciencing!
Paul
Two things really shone out for me from the lessons that I thought I'd share with you.
The first was a lesson we did from the Connected Fact or Fiction article on Pseudoscience. We started with a science board whole class reading activity and then the next day did the experiment exploring how much fat is in regular chips and non-fat ones. What was interesting was watching the children carrying out the experiment. We had talked beforehand about being methodical and careful with measuring and doing the investigation and on the whole they were. However, watching the children reminded us of the need to be giving them more opportunities to carry out experiments by themselves with less input from the teachers i.e. reading the experiment carefully. We also talked about the deliberate acts of teaching that is needed to support students in reading and carrying out procedures. They may need to be taught how to read carefully through the steps, not skipping bits as well as reading why they are doing the experiment and the expected outcomes. Children may not necessarily get better just by doing lots of experiments -they may need chances to talk about how to do the experiment as well as why we need to follow the steps. I know it might not seem like rocket science (no pun intended!) but in the busyness of the lesson we can forget!
The second moment came from working with intermediate age children and Lego. They were investigating whether they could affect a vehicles travel speed or distance by adding weight or aerodynamics, etc -it was their choice of variable. We discovered that we hadn't left much time for 'play'. I had leapt straight into the lesson but the children wanted the chance just to play, pull apart the cars and rebuild them as well as do the experiment. Most didn't start with recording but if I mentioned it, they immediately grabbed a book and recorded the data well. The teacher and I ended up talking about whether we should have had a chance to 'play' first with the ideas, perhaps a half hour lesson but still encouraging that scientific thinking with their efforts and then the next day, doing the lesson again with an emphasis on scientific thinking and behaviour -which, when I asked the children during the lesson, were all well aware of -they were just too busy to remember! This did happen a little with the first lesson too -we noticed they were very excited perhaps because we hadn't done much of this kind of science before. All were keen on the experiment and were aware of how to act -they were just enjoying the lesson and the experience too much!
Again, that whole idea of needing to allow children the chance to play and explore is really essential. As is the need to be deliberate about how we teach science so that they grow that understanding of what science is. I had a fantastic week at the school and watching the way all the children responded in science was heartwarming. I love it when the PLD is working!
As always, keep an eye on my Facebook page for pictures and videos and the odd extra idea, search for "science happening NZ". The latest lesson was sent out this morning all about paper flowers and capillary action.
Keep on sciencing!
Paul
Thursday 8 November 2018
A bit of a bouillabaisse but sort of about students being critical and thinking for themselves... I think!
And that might take the record for the longest title so far! This week's blog started with me talking with my colleague Anne about Is no science better than bad science? We were discussing some of the resources out there and how they could be used to promote better teaching and a higher understanding of science for students but just as easily be a 'formula' lesson that, at the end of it, children have sort of done science but may not be any the wiser in thinking about how science works and its particular style of thinking, action and communication.
I also had the chance to read a flaming competition after a facebook post writing about how the paperbags from Countdown reminded her of the 'old days'. One person was posting about how plastic bags were better and shared a link: http://www.allaboutbags.ca/papervplastic.html and this reminded me of the recent "Ban the straws" movement. I think it was on National Radio where two people were arguing this with one stating how important straws were from a medical care point of view and another asking whether this was the most important thing to focus on when reducing plastic use.
Whether these are right or not isn't the point of this blogpost. It's really asking Do we check science reported by the media or our friends? Do we accept that what someone says is 'right' straight away? I know that there have been times media have jumped on a bandwagon to report something only to find out a couple of days later that they got the wrong end of the stick.
So with these examples, who's right? Do I just say plastic bags are bad because that's what my stuff app on my iPad says? Or the TV news? Who are the ones saying that it's bad? Do they have a particular view or bent that might be biased? How would I find out or know? One thing that I'm quite interested in is that whole 'fake science' thing. My son is adamant that the moon landings were faked despite the plethora of evidence that proves him wrong. I'm speaking tongue in cheek a little as he has the same amount of facts proving me wrong! So who is right? This isn't one of those we can agree to disagree because we either did land on the moon or we didn't!
A while ago I read an interesting article about a reporter who did a pseudo-science investigation into whether chocolate can help you lose weight and was surprised at the amount of media outlets that simply ran the story without delving deeper (https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800?IR=T). From memory only one interviewer asked about the methodology... I guess the rest were just wanting a good sound bite: Chocolate helps you lose weight (and who wouldn't!).
I remembered about some articles that showed how most science journals will only publish investigations that have positive results and how this is affecting the science that is happening -you have to make sure that you succeed to get published. I wonder how this might affect the quality of the science happening? You certainly wouldn't want to take risks. At the same time, I came across some articles about how people had managed to get papers published in science journals that were clearly fake. These journals required you to pay to be published and purported to be peer reviewed but again, how would you know? Maybe Starwars' the Force is real!
I sometimes use The Onion or Babylon Bee (which is Christian-based) to give articles to children that are very clearly fake. Feel free to email me if you'd like a copy. I use them more for Year 7 and 8 children but they have fooled teachers too. They look scientific and they have scientist's names on them so maybe they are true...
So wrapping this all up... How do we support our students to develop critical thinking skills? How do we support them to know how to be critical and what to look for when reading an article or investigating a bit further? With resources that arrive at school, how can I use them to grow this sceptism or critical thinking? How can I challenge what they find out after doing the various experiments?
As an aside, I wonder what questions they might have that weigh on them. I'm always surprised how deep children are in terms of 'the big issues' and if all they've heard is mum and dad or the tv news, how could they check or confirm these problems? Sceptism is certainly a part of the curriculum, and something I have in spades -and yes, you can feel sorry for people I chat with! The important bit is that I'll go off to check out claims and facts and I think we need to be helping our students do the same! If they are worried about Rotorua disappearing in an almighty eruption next year, how can we investigate this claim and check its veracity?
Keep sciencing
Paul
Weblinks:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/28/410313446/why-a-journalist-scammed-the-media-into-spreading-bad-chocolate-science
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/02/fake-research-paper-based-on-star-trek-voyagers-worst-episode-was-published-by-a-scientific-journal/
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/scientific-journals-publish-bogus-paper-about-midi-chlorians-from-star-wars/
I also had the chance to read a flaming competition after a facebook post writing about how the paperbags from Countdown reminded her of the 'old days'. One person was posting about how plastic bags were better and shared a link: http://www.allaboutbags.ca/papervplastic.html and this reminded me of the recent "Ban the straws" movement. I think it was on National Radio where two people were arguing this with one stating how important straws were from a medical care point of view and another asking whether this was the most important thing to focus on when reducing plastic use.
Whether these are right or not isn't the point of this blogpost. It's really asking Do we check science reported by the media or our friends? Do we accept that what someone says is 'right' straight away? I know that there have been times media have jumped on a bandwagon to report something only to find out a couple of days later that they got the wrong end of the stick.
So with these examples, who's right? Do I just say plastic bags are bad because that's what my stuff app on my iPad says? Or the TV news? Who are the ones saying that it's bad? Do they have a particular view or bent that might be biased? How would I find out or know? One thing that I'm quite interested in is that whole 'fake science' thing. My son is adamant that the moon landings were faked despite the plethora of evidence that proves him wrong. I'm speaking tongue in cheek a little as he has the same amount of facts proving me wrong! So who is right? This isn't one of those we can agree to disagree because we either did land on the moon or we didn't!
A while ago I read an interesting article about a reporter who did a pseudo-science investigation into whether chocolate can help you lose weight and was surprised at the amount of media outlets that simply ran the story without delving deeper (https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800?IR=T). From memory only one interviewer asked about the methodology... I guess the rest were just wanting a good sound bite: Chocolate helps you lose weight (and who wouldn't!).
I remembered about some articles that showed how most science journals will only publish investigations that have positive results and how this is affecting the science that is happening -you have to make sure that you succeed to get published. I wonder how this might affect the quality of the science happening? You certainly wouldn't want to take risks. At the same time, I came across some articles about how people had managed to get papers published in science journals that were clearly fake. These journals required you to pay to be published and purported to be peer reviewed but again, how would you know? Maybe Starwars' the Force is real!
I sometimes use The Onion or Babylon Bee (which is Christian-based) to give articles to children that are very clearly fake. Feel free to email me if you'd like a copy. I use them more for Year 7 and 8 children but they have fooled teachers too. They look scientific and they have scientist's names on them so maybe they are true...
So wrapping this all up... How do we support our students to develop critical thinking skills? How do we support them to know how to be critical and what to look for when reading an article or investigating a bit further? With resources that arrive at school, how can I use them to grow this sceptism or critical thinking? How can I challenge what they find out after doing the various experiments?
As an aside, I wonder what questions they might have that weigh on them. I'm always surprised how deep children are in terms of 'the big issues' and if all they've heard is mum and dad or the tv news, how could they check or confirm these problems? Sceptism is certainly a part of the curriculum, and something I have in spades -and yes, you can feel sorry for people I chat with! The important bit is that I'll go off to check out claims and facts and I think we need to be helping our students do the same! If they are worried about Rotorua disappearing in an almighty eruption next year, how can we investigate this claim and check its veracity?
Keep sciencing
Paul
Weblinks:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/28/410313446/why-a-journalist-scammed-the-media-into-spreading-bad-chocolate-science
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/02/fake-research-paper-based-on-star-trek-voyagers-worst-episode-was-published-by-a-scientific-journal/
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/scientific-journals-publish-bogus-paper-about-midi-chlorians-from-star-wars/
Thursday 1 November 2018
ECE to Juniors...
I know I write a lot about middles and seniors with science but I have had an interesting week and wanted to write a wee bit about juniors for a change!
This week I worked with some junior teachers exploring the idea of play-based learning within the context of science. We used the Te Whāriki curriculum as a starter as well as the website which has a bit more about science on than the actual printed curriculum seems to. We also had a couple of readings about junior themed science to use as a parallel alongside the NZC and Te Whāriki.
It was a good conversation because the science capabilities reflect that idea of children inquiring, wondering and seeking answers which can be sen within a play-based learning context. For assessments, we thought the capability indicators that I have written could be worthwhile, choosing a dozen or so and rewriting to reflect a more junior-based programme, and then sharing OTJs on students as they participated in different activities.
What sort of popped up in the conversation a little was what do we expect children at Year 1 and 2 to be doing in science? Not just the activity but also them -how should the capabilities look? What should teachers be expecting congnitively or behaviour-wise? This bit has ended up stuck in my head and I think it's a really important one for schools to be discussing. Do we expect the 5 year olds to be exploring sustainability or becoming kaitiaki? What do the experts think? What kind of foundations should the juniors teachers be supporting the children to develop?
Sometimes I think we can go a bit deep. I've walked into junior classrooms and seen particle theory, tectonic plates, and acids and alkali being addressed. I've also had some very deep conversations with these wee ones where I've had to end up trying to explain some pretty deep concepts to a 5 year old who grasped the ideas quite ably! For me, the phrase 'emergent understanding' pinched off an NZC poster well explain science at this level.
Children will be exposed to lots of different ideas in science using all four context strands. They are encouraged to gather and start to interpret what they are noticing, as well as beginning to communicate their ideas and understanding other people's communications (for example, the good ol' Monarch butterfly life cycle!). They are encouraged to ask questions, to notice change, to be careful observers, respect the environment, be fascinated by bugs and birds, get excited about reactions (like baking soda and vinegar models of volcanoes!) and start to develop a scientific lens.
I'm not sure they need a lot of knowledge developing -I might leave that for the next levels to grow that. But I do want to catch hold of that awe and curiosity that children come to school with and nurture it. I want them to know I'm interested in what they have to say and I want them to be interested in what I want to show them! I might talk about this being 'science' but I might even leave that to the next levels up as well.
Yesterday, I got home from a trip to Rotorua and my wife was keen to share her experience of working with some wee ones using my cellophane fish (which incidentally is next week's lesson I'm emailing out!). They were all preschoolers and I was really interested in how they behaved. As she spoke, I was thinking about whether you could start to build an 'expectations' rubric of preschoolers, 5 and 6 year olds, etc... What was interesting was, for the whole, all the children were fascinated with the wriggling fish on their hand, but more the effect on them or what they were feeling. They giggled that it was 'tiggling me' but there were no questions or wonderings happening at all. One four year old put the fish on the table where it didn't work so stuck it back on his hand. Although my wife didn't use these as a science lesson but a fun ending to the Rainbow Fish story, I was curious as to how it would have gone had I been there. Could children had even grasped the concepts of I notice, I think, I wonder? She mentioned they were very ego-centric so perhaps science activities would need to reflect that too... how do you feel with that insect on your hand?, What do you think that tastes like? rather than getting to deep into what do you notice happening in the glass?...
I'm certainly not an expert at ECE level and am very open to a discussion here but I can't help wondering if "I notice" is enough at this level. Perhaps "I think" could be introduced as children work through year 1 and 2, as well as starting to encourage asking questions. "I wonder" may be more appropriate to develop as a more formal science inquiry at Year 2 or 3. I think these are really important questions to be asking ourselves particularly with planning our science...
This week I worked with some junior teachers exploring the idea of play-based learning within the context of science. We used the Te Whāriki curriculum as a starter as well as the website which has a bit more about science on than the actual printed curriculum seems to. We also had a couple of readings about junior themed science to use as a parallel alongside the NZC and Te Whāriki.
It was a good conversation because the science capabilities reflect that idea of children inquiring, wondering and seeking answers which can be sen within a play-based learning context. For assessments, we thought the capability indicators that I have written could be worthwhile, choosing a dozen or so and rewriting to reflect a more junior-based programme, and then sharing OTJs on students as they participated in different activities.
What sort of popped up in the conversation a little was what do we expect children at Year 1 and 2 to be doing in science? Not just the activity but also them -how should the capabilities look? What should teachers be expecting congnitively or behaviour-wise? This bit has ended up stuck in my head and I think it's a really important one for schools to be discussing. Do we expect the 5 year olds to be exploring sustainability or becoming kaitiaki? What do the experts think? What kind of foundations should the juniors teachers be supporting the children to develop?
Sometimes I think we can go a bit deep. I've walked into junior classrooms and seen particle theory, tectonic plates, and acids and alkali being addressed. I've also had some very deep conversations with these wee ones where I've had to end up trying to explain some pretty deep concepts to a 5 year old who grasped the ideas quite ably! For me, the phrase 'emergent understanding' pinched off an NZC poster well explain science at this level.
Children will be exposed to lots of different ideas in science using all four context strands. They are encouraged to gather and start to interpret what they are noticing, as well as beginning to communicate their ideas and understanding other people's communications (for example, the good ol' Monarch butterfly life cycle!). They are encouraged to ask questions, to notice change, to be careful observers, respect the environment, be fascinated by bugs and birds, get excited about reactions (like baking soda and vinegar models of volcanoes!) and start to develop a scientific lens.
I'm not sure they need a lot of knowledge developing -I might leave that for the next levels to grow that. But I do want to catch hold of that awe and curiosity that children come to school with and nurture it. I want them to know I'm interested in what they have to say and I want them to be interested in what I want to show them! I might talk about this being 'science' but I might even leave that to the next levels up as well.
Yesterday, I got home from a trip to Rotorua and my wife was keen to share her experience of working with some wee ones using my cellophane fish (which incidentally is next week's lesson I'm emailing out!). They were all preschoolers and I was really interested in how they behaved. As she spoke, I was thinking about whether you could start to build an 'expectations' rubric of preschoolers, 5 and 6 year olds, etc... What was interesting was, for the whole, all the children were fascinated with the wriggling fish on their hand, but more the effect on them or what they were feeling. They giggled that it was 'tiggling me' but there were no questions or wonderings happening at all. One four year old put the fish on the table where it didn't work so stuck it back on his hand. Although my wife didn't use these as a science lesson but a fun ending to the Rainbow Fish story, I was curious as to how it would have gone had I been there. Could children had even grasped the concepts of I notice, I think, I wonder? She mentioned they were very ego-centric so perhaps science activities would need to reflect that too... how do you feel with that insect on your hand?, What do you think that tastes like? rather than getting to deep into what do you notice happening in the glass?...
I'm certainly not an expert at ECE level and am very open to a discussion here but I can't help wondering if "I notice" is enough at this level. Perhaps "I think" could be introduced as children work through year 1 and 2, as well as starting to encourage asking questions. "I wonder" may be more appropriate to develop as a more formal science inquiry at Year 2 or 3. I think these are really important questions to be asking ourselves particularly with planning our science...
- What do we want children to develop from this science lesson sequence?
- What do we want children to develop as a science lens?
- Are there any particular knowledge topics we think are important for a 5 year old?]
- How could the science capabilities look at this level?
Anyway, just a bit of a musing and something I'd like to continue to pursue! I'd love to hear your views as well!
Keep on sciencing
Paul
Wednesday 24 October 2018
Paleoart and DINOSAURS!!!
I have discovered the world of podcasting and love it! There are a few that I like (and I'm open to more -feel free to suggest!) and on the way back to work from Rotorua, I was listening to an episode from 99% Invisible about 'paleoart' which I found fascinating (as I usually do) as well as a great opportunity for our older children to learn about inference.
I know that's a skill that is taught in reading but can be a bit more difficult to understand in science. The TKI science capabilities website (www.scienceonline.tki.org.nz) talks a bit about the first capability Gather and Interpret Data by talking about the gathering data as directly observable or measurable whilst the interpreting data bit is making meaning of the observation. As soon as children start to explain something, it's usually an inference!
Anyway this week's podcast was about the art of drawing dinosaurs and looked at how they were first drawn which was as big, cumbersome creatures that never moved. In fact one picture I was looking at showed two dinosaurs comatose as well as biting one another!
This has moved on to the current dinosaurs which are very fluid and, as one person said, looking shrink-wrapped with lots of muscles as if they headed off to the gym three times a week. Jurassic Park has sort of followed this model, particularly in the early days.
Now people drawing dinosaurs is changing again, and here's the inferences bit... We really have no idea what the dinosaurs really looked like. We do have some fossils with remains of muscles, fat and scales on. We also have fossils with what looks like proto-feathers on. But we don't know whether all dinosaurs had all of these! If you look at modern mammals, there's quite a wide selection even in the same type of animal! So this has given artists leeway to experiment. Here's what a dinosaur may have looked like that lived in the colder regions:
I think this is interesting for two reasons. One, it can support children in being a little more critical of dinosaur art... How can the artist be sure it was purple with yellow stripes (which a dinosaur big book that I had in my classroom did!)? How can I be sure it didn't? If I want to infer, can it just be my imagination or does it need to be justified? So what does inference really mean then? Secondly, it can help children really get their head around observation and inference. We can work out that a triceratops had three horns and the shape of it's skeleton. We may also be able to tell how long the tail may have been... well, at least the bones bit! But the rest is inference! It may have had quills on the top of its head. It might have had a bright red frill... Could children look at a picture and a fossil and work out the observation and inference bits?
The podcast and a couple of the articles talk about what we might think modern animals may look like to the future paleontologist -there won't be an elephant trunk fossil, camel hump or the blubber of a whale to show them what these creatures really looked like. In fact how do we know the dinosaurs didn't have a big hump?
I love the picture of swans they draw as I already think of them as violent creatures!
One has speared a tadpole, neither have feathers or wings as they didn't fossilize...
The articles are quite interesting and I think this would make a great reading activity for the children. If I was to do it, I would draw the science out of this... So what are we learning about science? My daughter knows I'm quite the critiquer and has become one herself. Recently, she watched a BBC dinosaur clip and paused it to tell me that the commentator was talking about the behaviour and appearance of the dinosaur as if it was true rather then "We believe that these particular dinosaurs played guitar late at night whilst wearing sombreros" (and I so want to find this as a picture!). This is what we want for our children: to learn how media report science, how science actually is, and what observation and inference are.
Do the inferences mean that the artist is wrong? Not necessarily, but we need to explain why we have drawn particular features. Although I remember the older dinosaur books having some pretty exotic colours, I never really thought it was legit... I sort of thought they'd be more camouflaged and I didn't think trees would be those colours. Mind you, they might have been anyway! I do remember that early efforts to model the iguanadon were completely wrong due to putting the fossil together incorrectly -could this still happen today?
So, have a read of some articles, look at some of the pictures, have a go at drawing the creature that would fit a particular skeleton (like a whale, camel or rabbit) without sharing what the creature is and then get the children to justify their efforts. They might even like to have a go at drawing what a dinosaur might have looked!
Here's some of the places I went:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/dinosaurs-and-the-anti-shrink-wrapping-revolution/
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/01/skin-deep-one-skin-fits-all-approach-to.html
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/ (This is the podcast one -I would certainly recommend it for the children to listen to as it is a safe one with some interesting ideas... and I like the idea of students listening to podcasts!).
I had to finish with this picture just because it looks lovely! Apparently most art of dinosaurs usually had them eating or fighting and this was one of the first pictures of them sleeping (although I'm wondering if they might have slept standing...).
So enjoy!
Keep on sciencing!
Paul
I know that's a skill that is taught in reading but can be a bit more difficult to understand in science. The TKI science capabilities website (www.scienceonline.tki.org.nz) talks a bit about the first capability Gather and Interpret Data by talking about the gathering data as directly observable or measurable whilst the interpreting data bit is making meaning of the observation. As soon as children start to explain something, it's usually an inference!
Anyway this week's podcast was about the art of drawing dinosaurs and looked at how they were first drawn which was as big, cumbersome creatures that never moved. In fact one picture I was looking at showed two dinosaurs comatose as well as biting one another!
 |
| https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/ |
 |
| https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/ |
 |
| http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/01/skin-deep-one-skin-fits-all-approach-to.html |
The podcast and a couple of the articles talk about what we might think modern animals may look like to the future paleontologist -there won't be an elephant trunk fossil, camel hump or the blubber of a whale to show them what these creatures really looked like. In fact how do we know the dinosaurs didn't have a big hump?
I love the picture of swans they draw as I already think of them as violent creatures!
The articles are quite interesting and I think this would make a great reading activity for the children. If I was to do it, I would draw the science out of this... So what are we learning about science? My daughter knows I'm quite the critiquer and has become one herself. Recently, she watched a BBC dinosaur clip and paused it to tell me that the commentator was talking about the behaviour and appearance of the dinosaur as if it was true rather then "We believe that these particular dinosaurs played guitar late at night whilst wearing sombreros" (and I so want to find this as a picture!). This is what we want for our children: to learn how media report science, how science actually is, and what observation and inference are.
Do the inferences mean that the artist is wrong? Not necessarily, but we need to explain why we have drawn particular features. Although I remember the older dinosaur books having some pretty exotic colours, I never really thought it was legit... I sort of thought they'd be more camouflaged and I didn't think trees would be those colours. Mind you, they might have been anyway! I do remember that early efforts to model the iguanadon were completely wrong due to putting the fossil together incorrectly -could this still happen today?
So, have a read of some articles, look at some of the pictures, have a go at drawing the creature that would fit a particular skeleton (like a whale, camel or rabbit) without sharing what the creature is and then get the children to justify their efforts. They might even like to have a go at drawing what a dinosaur might have looked!
Here's some of the places I went:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/dinosaurs-and-the-anti-shrink-wrapping-revolution/
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/01/skin-deep-one-skin-fits-all-approach-to.html
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/ (This is the podcast one -I would certainly recommend it for the children to listen to as it is a safe one with some interesting ideas... and I like the idea of students listening to podcasts!).
I had to finish with this picture just because it looks lovely! Apparently most art of dinosaurs usually had them eating or fighting and this was one of the first pictures of them sleeping (although I'm wondering if they might have slept standing...).
 |
| https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/all-yesterdays-book-and-launch-event/ |
So enjoy!
Keep on sciencing!
Paul
Monday 15 October 2018
What do I need for science?
Well the last term for the year and time to start budgeting for the next! I often get asked what equipment do we need and I tend to be a bit vague: I don't really know what science you'll be doing! From working in schools and seeing what's around I have a few ideas and thought I'd share. This is not complete and it's a list that I imagine could continue to be added to.
In fact I so like the idea of everyone sharing, I've made a public google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q140qUcKC-xo3RMJd6msUDqubXW6qZ0FmQvfF4pCfvA/edit?usp=sharing. Feel free to have a look and add ideas! It would be great to have a joint list with practical things teachers are using.
With my lessons I tend to use consumables: plastic shot glasses for beakers, plastic cups and spoons and paper towels etc. I use plastic spoons for stirring and keep all my baking soda, etc containers so then I can share them out with the whole class. Having a stock of these is a good idea but I do know that some teachers don't really get the idea of replenishing supplies and leave it for the next person to do that -I've worked in schools and know this!
I like the kitchen science side: oil, vinegar, salt, sugars, baking soda, baking powder, etc are great. I also use butcher trays for the children to experiment in so there's less mess. I tend to like capacity but just use cups "get half a cup of water...". Having some jugs to measure capacity would be worthwhile as would some scales.
I would like to see in every classroom a set of magnifying glasses. Perhaps there could be four or five very good ones and then lots of the smaller ones -I guess you could share with another class but having some on the science table is important! Don't buy the plastic ones -they don't really work as well as the glass varieties. A USB microscope can be handy too, perhaps one per room. There are quite cheap ones out there that really just magnify well rather than get as fine as a microscope but I think they're fine for most science work. Having one really good microscope is useful too, particularly for the older children. I worked in country schools and used to get donated lovely microscopes from farmers -I don't know if that still happens though! Asking around can find good stuff -perhaps a local business or the vets have an older microscope they don't want?
Safety glasses can be helpful -I've used them a little bit and probably should use them more just to make sure eyes are protected. It's a good habit to get into!
I love ice cream containers too -mind you, I also love ice cream! There are lots of uses for these and I always have one in the car in case I go wandering and find something interesting. Start building up a collection for the school... If I look on my shelves, I have containers with marbles, kinetic sand, cornflour, toy cars, feathers, seed pods, shells, rocks, party poppers, exuvia, as well as a pile of objects I find at the $2 shop!
What else can I find on my shelves that might be useful... food colouring (the little squeezy bottles which are easier for children to use), a funnel, different size sealable plastic bags, PET bottles, magnets (these need to be checked regularly as they can lose their magnetic field), paper clips, and far too many rocks!
I'd love to hear more of your own ideas -feel free to add to the google doc or below and I'll add them...
And now I'm thinking about rulers and tweezers too!
Keep sciencing...
Oh, almost forgot... thanks to those of you who have asked for the weekly lessons -I hope they're useful! Do check out my facebook page too: science happening NZ!
have a great term!
In fact I so like the idea of everyone sharing, I've made a public google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q140qUcKC-xo3RMJd6msUDqubXW6qZ0FmQvfF4pCfvA/edit?usp=sharing. Feel free to have a look and add ideas! It would be great to have a joint list with practical things teachers are using.
With my lessons I tend to use consumables: plastic shot glasses for beakers, plastic cups and spoons and paper towels etc. I use plastic spoons for stirring and keep all my baking soda, etc containers so then I can share them out with the whole class. Having a stock of these is a good idea but I do know that some teachers don't really get the idea of replenishing supplies and leave it for the next person to do that -I've worked in schools and know this!
I like the kitchen science side: oil, vinegar, salt, sugars, baking soda, baking powder, etc are great. I also use butcher trays for the children to experiment in so there's less mess. I tend to like capacity but just use cups "get half a cup of water...". Having some jugs to measure capacity would be worthwhile as would some scales.
I would like to see in every classroom a set of magnifying glasses. Perhaps there could be four or five very good ones and then lots of the smaller ones -I guess you could share with another class but having some on the science table is important! Don't buy the plastic ones -they don't really work as well as the glass varieties. A USB microscope can be handy too, perhaps one per room. There are quite cheap ones out there that really just magnify well rather than get as fine as a microscope but I think they're fine for most science work. Having one really good microscope is useful too, particularly for the older children. I worked in country schools and used to get donated lovely microscopes from farmers -I don't know if that still happens though! Asking around can find good stuff -perhaps a local business or the vets have an older microscope they don't want?
Safety glasses can be helpful -I've used them a little bit and probably should use them more just to make sure eyes are protected. It's a good habit to get into!
I love ice cream containers too -mind you, I also love ice cream! There are lots of uses for these and I always have one in the car in case I go wandering and find something interesting. Start building up a collection for the school... If I look on my shelves, I have containers with marbles, kinetic sand, cornflour, toy cars, feathers, seed pods, shells, rocks, party poppers, exuvia, as well as a pile of objects I find at the $2 shop!
What else can I find on my shelves that might be useful... food colouring (the little squeezy bottles which are easier for children to use), a funnel, different size sealable plastic bags, PET bottles, magnets (these need to be checked regularly as they can lose their magnetic field), paper clips, and far too many rocks!
I'd love to hear more of your own ideas -feel free to add to the google doc or below and I'll add them...
And now I'm thinking about rulers and tweezers too!
Keep sciencing...
Oh, almost forgot... thanks to those of you who have asked for the weekly lessons -I hope they're useful! Do check out my facebook page too: science happening NZ!
have a great term!
Friday 5 October 2018
Learning Pathways
You may have noticed in the odd blog post that I do think a little about learning pathways. How is the science linked through the years? What do middle and senior classes do to build on science experiences in the junior rooms? How much science or how should the science look for the Juniors?
One big focus can be the science capabilities and this gives a lot of freedom for teachers. It doesn't really matter what the context is as the children are developing how they observe, explain, critique and communicate. Because of this,the contexts are simply that! Contexts for students to develop science thinking so it doesn't matter if they only do floating and sinking at Y2 or the solar system at Y7.
My worry about this approach is that it's the depth of the science context that will build a greater development of the capabilities and the above approach may end up having children stuck at Gathering and Interpreting Data as each new concept taught probably needs a Level 1/2 approach before extending to Levels 3/4. In fact sometimes the children may never get past that early level.
Imagine if there were particular topics the school thought were vital (and I don't think one of those would be Floating and Sinking), for example, sustainability or an estuary study. It would be advantageous if these were local contexts that connect to the children's lives. The Rocky Shore may be a great one off topic for children who might visit there once in a while but a River study happening often would be good for a school where a river is a part of the community.
By carefully mapping out what the study might look like at different years, how each level will build on capabilities and content knowledge and topics, children won't get the sense of déjà vu! Junior classes may simply explore the river, looking at flora and fauna and learning the names of some of the creatures that live in, on, and around the river whilst middle levels may go into a bit more depth looking at how life around the river might depend on each other, how the ecosystem works. The seniors might monitor different aspects of the river, connect with scientists and explore various issues such as pollution. Of course, this is just an idea but the thought of ensuring different levels have different stuff to teach as well as different foci are very important
It's funny when teachers suggest they can't do a particular topic because it has already been done at a younger level or senior teachers couldn't possibly do butterflies as the juniors already have. When I get told this I think about whether there are scientists exploring the topic such as a lepidopterist (a butterfly scientist!) -are they still working at Level 1 or 2? What on earth could they be doing to still be interested in butterflies when most children (and some teachers) state they've 'done' butterflies by Y2! I think there's a real richness in revisiting some of those previous topics as well as having some topics that children will revisit. This way they can jump straight into the learning!
A few times with my PLD in schools, we've got teachers to share what they're doing with their respective classes. This is so valuable just in terms of connecting with one another and exposing each other to schoolwork that they otherwise may never have seen. I also hear teachers saying Oh, I wonder if my class think that! What an interesting opportunity to see if the children have developed further!
Finally, what about from your school to the next level up? It might be the local intermediate or college. What do those teachers teach in terms of topics? How do they view the capabilities? Are there particular skills that the children could be introduced to earlier? Particular vocab? Are there topics that it could be beneficial for the children to have at least been exposed to?
There's a lot to think about here but I think it's an essential topic to discuss with the staff. As we move towards the end of the year and start thinking about topics for next year, are there some 'essentials' that the school thinks is important? Is there a chance to revisit a topic?
Thanks for reading
Paul
One big focus can be the science capabilities and this gives a lot of freedom for teachers. It doesn't really matter what the context is as the children are developing how they observe, explain, critique and communicate. Because of this,the contexts are simply that! Contexts for students to develop science thinking so it doesn't matter if they only do floating and sinking at Y2 or the solar system at Y7.
My worry about this approach is that it's the depth of the science context that will build a greater development of the capabilities and the above approach may end up having children stuck at Gathering and Interpreting Data as each new concept taught probably needs a Level 1/2 approach before extending to Levels 3/4. In fact sometimes the children may never get past that early level.
Imagine if there were particular topics the school thought were vital (and I don't think one of those would be Floating and Sinking), for example, sustainability or an estuary study. It would be advantageous if these were local contexts that connect to the children's lives. The Rocky Shore may be a great one off topic for children who might visit there once in a while but a River study happening often would be good for a school where a river is a part of the community.
By carefully mapping out what the study might look like at different years, how each level will build on capabilities and content knowledge and topics, children won't get the sense of déjà vu! Junior classes may simply explore the river, looking at flora and fauna and learning the names of some of the creatures that live in, on, and around the river whilst middle levels may go into a bit more depth looking at how life around the river might depend on each other, how the ecosystem works. The seniors might monitor different aspects of the river, connect with scientists and explore various issues such as pollution. Of course, this is just an idea but the thought of ensuring different levels have different stuff to teach as well as different foci are very important
It's funny when teachers suggest they can't do a particular topic because it has already been done at a younger level or senior teachers couldn't possibly do butterflies as the juniors already have. When I get told this I think about whether there are scientists exploring the topic such as a lepidopterist (a butterfly scientist!) -are they still working at Level 1 or 2? What on earth could they be doing to still be interested in butterflies when most children (and some teachers) state they've 'done' butterflies by Y2! I think there's a real richness in revisiting some of those previous topics as well as having some topics that children will revisit. This way they can jump straight into the learning!
A few times with my PLD in schools, we've got teachers to share what they're doing with their respective classes. This is so valuable just in terms of connecting with one another and exposing each other to schoolwork that they otherwise may never have seen. I also hear teachers saying Oh, I wonder if my class think that! What an interesting opportunity to see if the children have developed further!
Finally, what about from your school to the next level up? It might be the local intermediate or college. What do those teachers teach in terms of topics? How do they view the capabilities? Are there particular skills that the children could be introduced to earlier? Particular vocab? Are there topics that it could be beneficial for the children to have at least been exposed to?
There's a lot to think about here but I think it's an essential topic to discuss with the staff. As we move towards the end of the year and start thinking about topics for next year, are there some 'essentials' that the school thinks is important? Is there a chance to revisit a topic?
Thanks for reading
Paul
Tuesday 25 September 2018
Invisible Gorillas
The other week I was listening to a podcast. It's my newest "find" and those of you who know me will know that I can be rather obsessive with "finds" -you should see my lovely Lego collection started a few months ago... I'm still on the hunt for minifigures!
Anyway this is from the How Stuff Works: Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast and is more of a science one. I have quite a few I listen to on my travels around the countryside and one of them recommended this site. The only problem with all my podcasts is I need to start finding some schools further away so I have time to listen to them all as I travel! Here's the link: https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/podcasts/the-obvious-invisible-gorillas-of-the-mind.htm. I don't remember if it's perfect for the children to listen to but it is interesting! As a wee squirrel... I like the ideas of children having opportunities to be immersed in science perhaps through a podcast, video or article...
The podcast was about "Invisible Gorillas", that idea that we can 'see' but actually can zone things out of our vision. A good example is driving. A few times I can sort of focus in and not really recollect earlier parts of the drive. It's not that I've fallen asleep (hopefully!) but just that my brain decided it wasn't important!
There's a couple of videos as a part of this. There's also a very funny Monty Python sketch mentioned on the podcast that took me a long time to find it and the first part illustrates this perfectly with additional cast members in the background that you don't even notice! One Invisible Gorilla clip is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo. There seem to be a few different versions out there. If you can, get the children to watch the video by themselves on their own device to limit 'Oh! Look at that gorilla!' moments. I tried to find one without telling the viewer they missed the gorilla but wasn't lucky. Ask the children who spotted the gorilla the first time. Research has shown it's usually about 50% -although there are other versions where it's even lower and that's after the viewer has already seen one video like this!
It's a good chance to talk about honesty in science -what if I don't want people to know I missed the gorilla? I might lie so I don't feel dumb. What might that do to the research? How could I find out who saw the gorilla in a way that didn't let them feel dumb. We're sort of playing a bit here in ethics. Asking the whole class at once in itself is an interesting experiment -we all want to be the same!
There's another video from a British road safety video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47LCLoidJh4. This has similar findings and interestingly, having watched one video previously doesn't seem to impact the second video's findings! What did children notice this time? As an aside you could use bit.ly to shorten the videos... I have: http://bit.ly/Paul_Gorilla and http://bit.ly/Paul_Bear.
Why would I do this? I really like the idea of opportunities for children to investigate ideas that scientists wonder, in this case, selective attention. Children could investigate a bit further -perhaps play the video to their whaanau and see what results they get -is it around the 50% mark? Are particular genders or ethnicities more susceptible to selective attention? Can we collect data and graph it? Or build up some inferences?
Children can also dip a bit deeper with the website: http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html. There are presentations on the websites that the children might like to watch to get some more thinking about what this is all about. But why do this? What's the point of the research? What do children think about this? Why do we have selective attention? What's the point of it? For us humans, we really don't want to or perhaps need to see everything! I'm typing this on my keyboard and if I stop, I can see the icons at the bottom of the screen or the blue 'on' light. But as I'm typing, I'm not aware of them at all! They must still be there! If I'm driving along and nothing is different as I drive through towns, my brain doesn't see the need to record the images or even notice! There are a few different articles out there including this one: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-selective-attention-2795022 that might be worth reading for those particularly interested.
In terms of capabilities, there's lots happening here. The idea of the science capabilities is that they don't really all operate in one-off situations but together. As children carry out the investigations, do they all do it the same? Do some say "Can you see anything strange in this video?" which might lead the viewer? Do others giggle as the gorilla turns up on the screen? It gives us a chance to talk about how we could investigate scientifically and carefully. It also helps us to talk about our own questioning -how do we make sure we don't ask leading questions?
Anyway, it was an interesting podcast, and I thought it could be interesting for you too! I know this doesn't have a lot of capabilities mentioned but they're there!
Paul
Anyway this is from the How Stuff Works: Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast and is more of a science one. I have quite a few I listen to on my travels around the countryside and one of them recommended this site. The only problem with all my podcasts is I need to start finding some schools further away so I have time to listen to them all as I travel! Here's the link: https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/podcasts/the-obvious-invisible-gorillas-of-the-mind.htm. I don't remember if it's perfect for the children to listen to but it is interesting! As a wee squirrel... I like the ideas of children having opportunities to be immersed in science perhaps through a podcast, video or article...
The podcast was about "Invisible Gorillas", that idea that we can 'see' but actually can zone things out of our vision. A good example is driving. A few times I can sort of focus in and not really recollect earlier parts of the drive. It's not that I've fallen asleep (hopefully!) but just that my brain decided it wasn't important!
There's a couple of videos as a part of this. There's also a very funny Monty Python sketch mentioned on the podcast that took me a long time to find it and the first part illustrates this perfectly with additional cast members in the background that you don't even notice! One Invisible Gorilla clip is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo. There seem to be a few different versions out there. If you can, get the children to watch the video by themselves on their own device to limit 'Oh! Look at that gorilla!' moments. I tried to find one without telling the viewer they missed the gorilla but wasn't lucky. Ask the children who spotted the gorilla the first time. Research has shown it's usually about 50% -although there are other versions where it's even lower and that's after the viewer has already seen one video like this!
It's a good chance to talk about honesty in science -what if I don't want people to know I missed the gorilla? I might lie so I don't feel dumb. What might that do to the research? How could I find out who saw the gorilla in a way that didn't let them feel dumb. We're sort of playing a bit here in ethics. Asking the whole class at once in itself is an interesting experiment -we all want to be the same!
There's another video from a British road safety video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47LCLoidJh4. This has similar findings and interestingly, having watched one video previously doesn't seem to impact the second video's findings! What did children notice this time? As an aside you could use bit.ly to shorten the videos... I have: http://bit.ly/Paul_Gorilla and http://bit.ly/Paul_Bear.
Why would I do this? I really like the idea of opportunities for children to investigate ideas that scientists wonder, in this case, selective attention. Children could investigate a bit further -perhaps play the video to their whaanau and see what results they get -is it around the 50% mark? Are particular genders or ethnicities more susceptible to selective attention? Can we collect data and graph it? Or build up some inferences?
Children can also dip a bit deeper with the website: http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html. There are presentations on the websites that the children might like to watch to get some more thinking about what this is all about. But why do this? What's the point of the research? What do children think about this? Why do we have selective attention? What's the point of it? For us humans, we really don't want to or perhaps need to see everything! I'm typing this on my keyboard and if I stop, I can see the icons at the bottom of the screen or the blue 'on' light. But as I'm typing, I'm not aware of them at all! They must still be there! If I'm driving along and nothing is different as I drive through towns, my brain doesn't see the need to record the images or even notice! There are a few different articles out there including this one: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-selective-attention-2795022 that might be worth reading for those particularly interested.
In terms of capabilities, there's lots happening here. The idea of the science capabilities is that they don't really all operate in one-off situations but together. As children carry out the investigations, do they all do it the same? Do some say "Can you see anything strange in this video?" which might lead the viewer? Do others giggle as the gorilla turns up on the screen? It gives us a chance to talk about how we could investigate scientifically and carefully. It also helps us to talk about our own questioning -how do we make sure we don't ask leading questions?
Anyway, it was an interesting podcast, and I thought it could be interesting for you too! I know this doesn't have a lot of capabilities mentioned but they're there!
Paul
Thursday 20 September 2018
Wrapping up the term
Recently I had a day visiting a school in Huntly where we did some co-teaching (which usually means I have to really focus on not squirrelling to different ideas as well as general interference with the lesson!). For the workshop we used my handy dandy new capabilities posters (the second updated version that went out to all schools that asked) to review the science for the year. Teachers wrote down specific skills they did with the students.
I'm sharing because I think it's a really good way of looking back at what we've done, how it has fitted into the science capabilities as well as challenging teacher understanding of the capabilities -where do particular skills go? We did it on post-it notes with different colours for the different levels of the school and this was helpful to think about how are we teaching the capabilities across the school: is it more Gather and Interpret Data at the junior levels? Are there more Use Evidence and Critique Evidence at the senior level? Does Interpret Representations show up across the board?
It was great seeing all the different topics and skills students were developing -especially seeing "floating and sinking" happening in the senior rooms! Sometimes we forget to revisit these ideas as we tend to think of them as 'junior class topics' and they very certainly are not!
From this, I typed them all up on a google doc for the school to review. I think it's really important for the teachers to see what each team or syndicate is up to, what they're doing and how... It also gives us a chance to critique our understanding, add more and plan for next year -what's missing, what could we be doing more of?, what can we focus on next term or year? We don't tend to do a lot of critiquing of our teaching in science and I wonder if a bit more would be helpful for our own understanding. Using google docs means we can add some comments to the side, asking questions, etc... I looked at what had been written and thought for next time, as teachers become more tuned to the capabilities, I'd like to see differences with some tags. For example, many teams wrote about observations or diagrams, but what differences might we see across the levels?
We also looked at the front end of the curriculum but this time wrote the activities we did and this also was interesting. You can see the cards at the bottom of the photo. From this, we can start talking about what areas are we doing well in and which areas could we perhaps target with science. I think some of the areas eg equity or diversity in NZC Values may be more difficult but through discussion and brainstorming, integrating science with other curriculum areas could support development in these areas.
I believe it was a really worthwhile activity for the staff with some good opportunities for follow ups -so I thought I'd share! We also talked a bit about questioning -are the questions asked in the junior rooms the same as in the senior rooms? Sometime they might be eg What do you notice? but with the expectation of a deeper answer from higher up in the school. However, are we also asking questions with more 'scientific verbs' eg compare and contrast, match, interpret, extrapolate...?
Finally, my apologies for the blog mailing list mix up. Thanks to all who replied to be put back on this! If you'd like a copy of the capabilities posters or my NZC ones (which are really just the front bits of the curriculum), do ask!
Keep on sciencing!
Paul
 |
| Our work... and I don't know why it's on this angle either! |
It was great seeing all the different topics and skills students were developing -especially seeing "floating and sinking" happening in the senior rooms! Sometimes we forget to revisit these ideas as we tend to think of them as 'junior class topics' and they very certainly are not!
From this, I typed them all up on a google doc for the school to review. I think it's really important for the teachers to see what each team or syndicate is up to, what they're doing and how... It also gives us a chance to critique our understanding, add more and plan for next year -what's missing, what could we be doing more of?, what can we focus on next term or year? We don't tend to do a lot of critiquing of our teaching in science and I wonder if a bit more would be helpful for our own understanding. Using google docs means we can add some comments to the side, asking questions, etc... I looked at what had been written and thought for next time, as teachers become more tuned to the capabilities, I'd like to see differences with some tags. For example, many teams wrote about observations or diagrams, but what differences might we see across the levels?
We also looked at the front end of the curriculum but this time wrote the activities we did and this also was interesting. You can see the cards at the bottom of the photo. From this, we can start talking about what areas are we doing well in and which areas could we perhaps target with science. I think some of the areas eg equity or diversity in NZC Values may be more difficult but through discussion and brainstorming, integrating science with other curriculum areas could support development in these areas.
I believe it was a really worthwhile activity for the staff with some good opportunities for follow ups -so I thought I'd share! We also talked a bit about questioning -are the questions asked in the junior rooms the same as in the senior rooms? Sometime they might be eg What do you notice? but with the expectation of a deeper answer from higher up in the school. However, are we also asking questions with more 'scientific verbs' eg compare and contrast, match, interpret, extrapolate...?
Finally, my apologies for the blog mailing list mix up. Thanks to all who replied to be put back on this! If you'd like a copy of the capabilities posters or my NZC ones (which are really just the front bits of the curriculum), do ask!
Keep on sciencing!
Paul
Monday 17 September 2018
Wash and repeat...
Just like the shampoo bottle, repeating is a great thing! If you are a reader of my blog, you'll know that I'm a firm advocate of doing a science lesson (at least the first bit) twice. If the children are making oobleck, although I will do all my questioning and prompting, it will be the first time the children have made it so there's loads going on in their heads! The second time, which could be the next day, I might challenge them with thinking like a scientist or how could we record our noticings like scientists?
It's interesting that even Year 7 and 8 students can benefit from repeat opportunities. Yes, you could change the experiment a little, for example, replacing the paper for photocopy card when making copters, but it's impressive the improvement in student thinking and communication with a second go.
I'd also revisit the ideas later in the year too. It may not be the same experiment but might have sufficient links that you can see whether students have developed that thinking and vocabulary. If I had made oobleck, I might make cornflour and conditioner 'dough' and remind children of what we had done previously.
This repeating is also good for me too! I get to try out my questions again, challenge with vocabulary, encourage further questioning and since I have a better idea of student response, I can refine my goals of capability development further.
I spent a lovely few days working with sole charge schools in Wairoa last week and saw this in action. In one school visit, we had the children looking at a tree log (which we originally thought was a stump!) with the aim of developing student questioning. The class had a bit of a chat first about how we should investigate as scientists -can we just rip the tree apart, does it matter about the flora and fauna we discover, etc... it was interesting the the first look captured some students' interest but not deeply -we sort of just looked! We then headed back up to the school where we discussed what we had seen and looked at questions we had written on post-it notes during the look. Immediately heading back down to the tree, I was really surprised at the difference of student behaviour with the second look. More questions were written, children got right into the log with a lot more close observation of what they were seeing. There was more interest and more engagement in all the children.
Our goal from this lesson was for children to investigate further on their own back in the classroom -what did we see and can we learn more about this 'stuff'. During the second visit the principal and I both realised we should have brought iPads down to photograph and in hindsight, I think it would have been good to have got the children into pairs -one can photograph and jot down notes and wonderings whilst the other investigates!
I met a principal that I had worked with the previous day (was a busy week) and he showed some student diagrams that we had the children make after an experiment. The children had carried out the experiment, we discussed it, and then the principal carried out the experiment in front of them and they drew diagrams that we critiqued later in the day. He had carried out the experiment again the next day and the children drew diagrams again after they had all critiqued their efforts from the day before. The difference was very visible. Detail had been put in and labels were more accurate and self-explanatory, as well as titles added.
In chatting with the literacy facilitator (we were doing a joint teacher-only day PLD session with the schools), there was a lot of conversation about the need for practice. When we're practising a PE skill such as shot put, we don't tend to do it once, critique the efforts and then move onto long jump! We keep going with the shot put and perhaps we need to think about this with science as well. The repeating of the same diagram definitely showed improvement. The Austin's Butterfly video (on youtube) is a really good example of this -good to play for your syndicate but also for the class!
So there we have it! Have a try. Often we teachers tend to think we need "new and exciting" for every lesson, but there's real value in repeating lessons and activities. Have a try!
As always, I'm happy to discuss this further -send me an email or comment on this blog. I do have a facebook page called "Science Happening NZ" where I post photos, videos and ideas to support science teaching.
It's also time to think about whether you'd like some science PLD for 2019. There's lots of different ways this can look in schools. I'm happy to chat further if you're curious.
Keep on sciencing!
Paul
It's interesting that even Year 7 and 8 students can benefit from repeat opportunities. Yes, you could change the experiment a little, for example, replacing the paper for photocopy card when making copters, but it's impressive the improvement in student thinking and communication with a second go.
I'd also revisit the ideas later in the year too. It may not be the same experiment but might have sufficient links that you can see whether students have developed that thinking and vocabulary. If I had made oobleck, I might make cornflour and conditioner 'dough' and remind children of what we had done previously.
This repeating is also good for me too! I get to try out my questions again, challenge with vocabulary, encourage further questioning and since I have a better idea of student response, I can refine my goals of capability development further.
 |
| A giant spider seen on the log... okay it wasn't "giant" but was really big -about 2 cms! |
Our goal from this lesson was for children to investigate further on their own back in the classroom -what did we see and can we learn more about this 'stuff'. During the second visit the principal and I both realised we should have brought iPads down to photograph and in hindsight, I think it would have been good to have got the children into pairs -one can photograph and jot down notes and wonderings whilst the other investigates!
 |
| I'm assuming these are all eggs with the ones on the left fresh -but not sure from what! Slugs? Snails? |
In chatting with the literacy facilitator (we were doing a joint teacher-only day PLD session with the schools), there was a lot of conversation about the need for practice. When we're practising a PE skill such as shot put, we don't tend to do it once, critique the efforts and then move onto long jump! We keep going with the shot put and perhaps we need to think about this with science as well. The repeating of the same diagram definitely showed improvement. The Austin's Butterfly video (on youtube) is a really good example of this -good to play for your syndicate but also for the class!
 |
| And I have even less of an idea on these... we decided that they were natural because there were different sizes and some of the rings seemed stuck together. Originally I thought there were man-made but not so sure! |
As always, I'm happy to discuss this further -send me an email or comment on this blog. I do have a facebook page called "Science Happening NZ" where I post photos, videos and ideas to support science teaching.
It's also time to think about whether you'd like some science PLD for 2019. There's lots of different ways this can look in schools. I'm happy to chat further if you're curious.
Keep on sciencing!
Paul
Thursday 30 August 2018
Class discussions
I have had a lovely couple of days working in Huntly with the Year 1 to 4 children which are always a lot of fun to work with. Teachers had planned out a lesson and I was meant to be co-teaching alongside them... although I always feel a better descriptor would be interferer or interrupter!
As a part of the lessons, there were opportunities for class discussions and watching these in action really got me thinking about the whole idea of 'on the mat' time (or 'sitting at desks' if they're seniors!).
It's not something I have spent time musing, it really is a 'right now' type of thing but I think it's a valid topic for schools and syndicates to be discussing further. I'd like to ask the question of 'why are you using a class discussion right now?' along with 'how will you know that you have achieved the objective?'. For example, if you are have decided to see whether children understand what you did yesterday with them, how will you know that they all understand?
The class discussions that I was a part of sometimes had the same children answering, small groups disengaged -who would be brought back in to the discussion "And what do you think Paul?" followed by a "Please listen carefully so you do have a view"! My time in front of the classrooms I'm certain were no different. There were certain children I'd ask because I thought they would know the right answers for everyone to listen to so they knew as well, certain children I didn't ask because I didn't want a 7 1/2 minute response or a gripping account of how their cat went missing the other night (and I know you all have those kids too!). But if the point is knowing what the children understand, and the medium is "class discussion", was this best?
Sometimes class discussions can be a bit of 'teacher tennis' with the teacher firing the ball out, children answering back and then the teacher firing out to a different child. What if the discussion could carry on without the teacher so other children instead responded? Often students aren't really listening to the person before them -they're desperate to have their view even if it's already been shared three times!
This isn't a topic that I'm an expert in but I wanted to share my thoughts and observations, not as criticisms but more of 'so how can we improve these?'. And I'm thinking of me visiting classrooms too! One teacher shared how she almost forced the discussion by asking a question and then simply stopping... those seconds of waiting for a response would have been very long! Slowly children did get the idea that this was their discussion not hers!
The science talk moves (on the TERC website) are brilliant to support this kind of thinking with well thought out prompts to promote conversation.
If it's always the same group of children playing the class discussion game, how could you better involve them? If you want them all listening carefully, how do we do this? As I said, I'm no expert but this week's discussions came up with some ideas...
As a part of the lessons, there were opportunities for class discussions and watching these in action really got me thinking about the whole idea of 'on the mat' time (or 'sitting at desks' if they're seniors!).
It's not something I have spent time musing, it really is a 'right now' type of thing but I think it's a valid topic for schools and syndicates to be discussing further. I'd like to ask the question of 'why are you using a class discussion right now?' along with 'how will you know that you have achieved the objective?'. For example, if you are have decided to see whether children understand what you did yesterday with them, how will you know that they all understand?
The class discussions that I was a part of sometimes had the same children answering, small groups disengaged -who would be brought back in to the discussion "And what do you think Paul?" followed by a "Please listen carefully so you do have a view"! My time in front of the classrooms I'm certain were no different. There were certain children I'd ask because I thought they would know the right answers for everyone to listen to so they knew as well, certain children I didn't ask because I didn't want a 7 1/2 minute response or a gripping account of how their cat went missing the other night (and I know you all have those kids too!). But if the point is knowing what the children understand, and the medium is "class discussion", was this best?
Sometimes class discussions can be a bit of 'teacher tennis' with the teacher firing the ball out, children answering back and then the teacher firing out to a different child. What if the discussion could carry on without the teacher so other children instead responded? Often students aren't really listening to the person before them -they're desperate to have their view even if it's already been shared three times!
This isn't a topic that I'm an expert in but I wanted to share my thoughts and observations, not as criticisms but more of 'so how can we improve these?'. And I'm thinking of me visiting classrooms too! One teacher shared how she almost forced the discussion by asking a question and then simply stopping... those seconds of waiting for a response would have been very long! Slowly children did get the idea that this was their discussion not hers!
The science talk moves (on the TERC website) are brilliant to support this kind of thinking with well thought out prompts to promote conversation.
If it's always the same group of children playing the class discussion game, how could you better involve them? If you want them all listening carefully, how do we do this? As I said, I'm no expert but this week's discussions came up with some ideas...
- changing the culture of what class discussions are
- lots more work in pairs or threes or even groups rather than 'teacher tennis'; children
- children recording ideas shared in a discussion -the teacher might prompt this or scaffold it... Ooooh, that's really interesting... make a note of what Paora has just said about a ski car working best on the sand. We might investigate that tomorrow.
- wrapping up the discussion by getting children to write down what they learnt from the discussion or an interesting point or a question that they've had resulting from the conversations
- using the talk moves... or even better, the children using the talk moves!
I guess that you would need to model and scaffold the children through at first but I'm imagining better discussions! A question that popped into my head as I was writing these ideas: how are children accountable to listen during the discussions? Is being silent enough to 'appear' to be engaged?
I think this would be a great topic for staff meetings -what do teachers think? And how can we improve the point of them?
I think this would be a great topic for staff meetings -what do teachers think? And how can we improve the point of them?
Anyway that's all! I'd love to hear your ideas about how to enrich class discussions. Why not stick some of these questions in your planner to think about your next discussion (or one you've just had). You could even video one! I get a lot of teachers doing this with my modelled lessons. Now I want to go back to see how the discussions were for all the children!
thanks for reading
Paul
Thursday 23 August 2018
Juniors and Seniors -what do you know?
Kia ora koutou
This is just a quick post (mind you, I do say that a bit!) from a thought that popped into my head this week.
On the wall I have two NZC posters which have been up for quite some time. I decided to look closer and something about them struck me. One is for levels 1 and 2 of the curriculum and the other for levels 3 and 4. I have a funny feeling I downloaded them from the Ministry of Education website. Really the posters are focusing on the two different levels of the Key Competencies but they also had a different title on each with the juniors one titled "Emergent Understandings" and the seniors one "Developing Understandings".
It was a bit of a light bulb moment for me. Sometimes when I'm in junior rooms, I can see teachers working hard to develop quite intense and complex ideas for the children to get their head around. I'm always amazed when the children are able to share back what they've learnt but the minute I start asking questions it all starts to fall apart a bit. I'm not against going in-depth into science topics and certainly as the children learn more, they get hungry for more. One teacher I worked with told me once that her class had studied bubbles for the whole term. It wasn't a unit that the teacher had planned out every activity and direction before the class started but one where the teacher had some capabilities foci and the children led the whole inquiry themselves. This is exactly what science should be about!
Anyway back on track... In the junior classes we're dealing with "emergent understandings" -just the beginning bits. We don't have to worry about whether or not children understand magnetic fields, tectonic plates, photosynthesis or the molecular structure of matter (all real life examples) we're just introducing these ideas to the children! We'll use some scientific vocabulary but the big focus is those ideas for Gather and Interpret Data concepts, and growing awe and wonder and curiosity AND an idea of what science is about (phew!).
If the seniors, and I mean Y5-8, are "developing understanding" this might make the programme at this end a little different. There's still space for new ideas, but to me (and here's the light bulb moment), if the children are developing understanding, there has to be some understanding that they have been exposed to in the junior room. And here's the big questions... do we know what the children learnt during the junior years? Do we know what ideas were shared, what units were taught so we can develop these ideas and understandings further?
For some reason there does seem to be "junior" themed units: shadows, butterflies, float and sinking, etc but I reckon these are all great with the seniors too. With such beautiful weather outside, take the kids out quick and get them to point out their shadows. Now ask them to stand with their shadows on the other side of themselves -a lot will try to do this which shows where their understanding is: the emergent level: the sun's light source is creating a shadow of me. As a teacher I might try to develop it further with the seniors with "translucent" and "transparent" and what shadows actually are and...and... I might even dig out the Building Science Concepts shadows book for levels 1 and 2 and see what's in there!
As I said earlier, there is room for new topics for the seniors but I love the idea of this 'learning pathway' happening through the school. As I wrote this sentence, the thought occurred to me could any 'new' topic the seniors want to do be at least introduced at a junior level? It's up to the junior teachers to find out what senior teachers might be wanting to do units on and vice versa!
And that was my light bulb moment!
This is just a quick post (mind you, I do say that a bit!) from a thought that popped into my head this week.
On the wall I have two NZC posters which have been up for quite some time. I decided to look closer and something about them struck me. One is for levels 1 and 2 of the curriculum and the other for levels 3 and 4. I have a funny feeling I downloaded them from the Ministry of Education website. Really the posters are focusing on the two different levels of the Key Competencies but they also had a different title on each with the juniors one titled "Emergent Understandings" and the seniors one "Developing Understandings".
 |
| http://jodyreganmath.blogspot.com |
Anyway back on track... In the junior classes we're dealing with "emergent understandings" -just the beginning bits. We don't have to worry about whether or not children understand magnetic fields, tectonic plates, photosynthesis or the molecular structure of matter (all real life examples) we're just introducing these ideas to the children! We'll use some scientific vocabulary but the big focus is those ideas for Gather and Interpret Data concepts, and growing awe and wonder and curiosity AND an idea of what science is about (phew!).
If the seniors, and I mean Y5-8, are "developing understanding" this might make the programme at this end a little different. There's still space for new ideas, but to me (and here's the light bulb moment), if the children are developing understanding, there has to be some understanding that they have been exposed to in the junior room. And here's the big questions... do we know what the children learnt during the junior years? Do we know what ideas were shared, what units were taught so we can develop these ideas and understandings further?
For some reason there does seem to be "junior" themed units: shadows, butterflies, float and sinking, etc but I reckon these are all great with the seniors too. With such beautiful weather outside, take the kids out quick and get them to point out their shadows. Now ask them to stand with their shadows on the other side of themselves -a lot will try to do this which shows where their understanding is: the emergent level: the sun's light source is creating a shadow of me. As a teacher I might try to develop it further with the seniors with "translucent" and "transparent" and what shadows actually are and...and... I might even dig out the Building Science Concepts shadows book for levels 1 and 2 and see what's in there!
As I said earlier, there is room for new topics for the seniors but I love the idea of this 'learning pathway' happening through the school. As I wrote this sentence, the thought occurred to me could any 'new' topic the seniors want to do be at least introduced at a junior level? It's up to the junior teachers to find out what senior teachers might be wanting to do units on and vice versa!
 |
| faithlivedout.wordpress.com |
And that was my light bulb moment!
Thursday 9 August 2018
Data, oh Data, wherefore art thou?
No I'm not going all Shakespearean on you... or (if you're a bit nerdy like I'm rumoured to be) Star Trek The Next Generation... I'm talking about the data we use for that first capability Gather and Interpret Data and then needing it for further analysis with the Use Evidence capability (and elsewhere too!).
Often in science we either think of the first capability as simply observations using our senses or we might gather some very simple data like how far a car will roll down a ramp. Particularly for our older children, grabbing hold of good data to formulate rich and robust explanations is really important. Although we can gather that data ourselves, there's plenty of places we can find some examples to use...
The nzmaths website has the Figure it Out series and there are three that are specifically science-based (although I think there are others you can use too). Some of these have data for their own activities (which are good in themselves) but why not grab out that data and do some of your own activities with it?
Jo Mathews, one of our University of Waikato maths facilitators, is great with the whole statistical literacy idea in science. She once brought in some data and said nothing about it... from memory, it was just a pile of numbers! She challenged us to figure out what the data were saying, what it were measuring. I really liked this idea and it could be an easy one to do yourself. Grab the weather data from the last week and take off all the measurement units. Can students start making sense of this data? If you shared the unit measurements, what does the data now say?
Another place to go is your local council or environmental council website. The one above is from my council and is easily accessed. The fourth capability also comes into play, Interpret Representations. What do we need to know to be able to read this? Why is the information presented like this? Is it easy to read? Why or why not? What information might be missing? Remember that the author is deciding which data to show and how -might there be more going on here? I'm curious that my local council doesn't elaborate on results or action points or even share what all the terms means and if I should be worried or not!
Besides graphs, tables are useful too:
Again, challenge our children -what do we think of the data? What is it showing? And not showing!
If I'm doing a topic study on the oceans, get children to analyse data, think about it and then use it for explanations. And an extra step -could children critique theirs and each others data? Scientists do this all the time! There are some who think climate change is real and others who are challenging the gathering of the data and the interpretation of it.
So there's some ideas for data! I hope it helps! If you would like further conversations about statistical literacy or science or the capabilities, get in touch!
Paul.
FUN FACT... "data" is actually a plural word! The correct grammar is to say "The data are showing us..." and after three years of knowing this, it still sounds weird!
Often in science we either think of the first capability as simply observations using our senses or we might gather some very simple data like how far a car will roll down a ramp. Particularly for our older children, grabbing hold of good data to formulate rich and robust explanations is really important. Although we can gather that data ourselves, there's plenty of places we can find some examples to use...
 |
| www.nzmaths.co.nz |
Jo Mathews, one of our University of Waikato maths facilitators, is great with the whole statistical literacy idea in science. She once brought in some data and said nothing about it... from memory, it was just a pile of numbers! She challenged us to figure out what the data were saying, what it were measuring. I really liked this idea and it could be an easy one to do yourself. Grab the weather data from the last week and take off all the measurement units. Can students start making sense of this data? If you shared the unit measurements, what does the data now say?
 |
| Matamata Piako District Council website |
Besides graphs, tables are useful too:
 |
| Also Matamata Piako District Council data |
If I'm doing a topic study on the oceans, get children to analyse data, think about it and then use it for explanations. And an extra step -could children critique theirs and each others data? Scientists do this all the time! There are some who think climate change is real and others who are challenging the gathering of the data and the interpretation of it.
So there's some ideas for data! I hope it helps! If you would like further conversations about statistical literacy or science or the capabilities, get in touch!
Paul.
FUN FACT... "data" is actually a plural word! The correct grammar is to say "The data are showing us..." and after three years of knowing this, it still sounds weird!
Sunday 5 August 2018
Planning a science unit...
I hope the beginning of the term has gone well for you all. I have had a busy time with schools and planning for the term's science -which is always fun! From the discussions I had with the teachers, I thought it might support others who may also be planning.
I have developed a wee resource with laminate cards that we use to prompt our thinking with units that are for the whole term or longer. I wouldn't go to this length with smaller units (or lesson progressions) although often my lessons for teachers are that thorough simply because I want to support them in their thinking about the science capabilities.
My cards are used really to prompt our thinking rather than have all the answers. The first card is The Big Idea -what's the really big idea that underpins the whole unit. It's the thought that encapsulates science, reading, maths, social sciences, whatever! It's global and probably not an assessment WALT -for example, children appreciate the world around them or children take action.
Next is the NZC Principles, Vision, Values and Key Competencies. I know that these sort of happen all the time, but are there elements that can be deliberately focused on? With my work over the past couple of weeks, teachers have picked out critical and creative thinking themes and sustainability ideas. We also need to look at our own local school curriculum -the values or virtues, etc that the school uses. As with the NZC bits, are there any that we can particularly focus on? I like the idea of starting with these as they need to underpin the unit and the term's teaching.
Because this is a science unit (albeit integrated with other curriculum areas), we'll start with the Context Strands. I've been thinking lots about the idea of shifting from single context strands (i.e. Term Three is "Material World") to topics that can incorporate more than one strand. I might have a focus on one, for example "Planet Earth and Beyond" and the Moon and Sun, but I might be able to develop some ideas in the "Physical World" with light and shadows. Remember, we don't assess student content knowledge, these context strands are the vehicle we use to develop student science capabilities or the nature of science. We still need the contexts to be rich and robust with lots of deep thinking and action happening though.
Now it's the stuff I particularly like! Science capabilities or the nature of science if you prefer. Remember that they are sort of interchangeable -you don't need to use both. The science capabilities can be found on the TKI site (try googling "science capabilities TKI") and again you'll probably be using more than one. I try to get teachers to focus on the capability that might be more suited to that year level so Gather and Interpret Data (G&ID) for the juniors, Use Evidence (UE) for the middles, and Critique Evidence (CE) for the seniors. I know that you need to use G&ID to develop UE thinking and you need both for the CE capability so all will be happening. It's just that as the teacher, I'm focusing on one particular capability, that's what I'm going to be assessing and using for my learning intentions. Of course, we will be looking at Interpreting Representations and possibly Engaged with Science too and they go across the levels.
Onto other curriculum areas... What else can you do with this topic? I like the idea of reading and writing (and oral language too I guess!) all wrapped up in the topic rather than simply independent stories that don't fit what we're studying as well as maths integrated. In a conversation I had last week, we talked about how to integrate reading and science, without losing the reading elements and gaining the idea that students can continue to develop their thinking about how the natural physical world and science itself work. It might be as simple as unpacking tables or diagrams, or did the scientist infer or observe and how do we know from the text...
We can also do some art or technology, etc too. One of the big things with integrating is that we still call science science. It's not topic. We might be doing a big unit on "The Lake" but when we do science-themed activities, we make sure that children realise that. Children are heading to high school without realising that they have had science lessons -they may remember topics but not make the connection. Of course we also want students to know what science is but that's what this whole blog is about!
I also had some extra cards -Tikanga Maaori, Digital Technologies, Citizen Science, Environmental Science, etc to stimulate thinking and further activities.
The final step is resources -where do we find them? They are pretty much everywhere but some ideal places to go is the Science Learning Hub, TKI might have some ideas, Royal Society but also DoC, Landcare as well. DoC's lessons are great but besides that, here are lots of NZ resources for us to use. We don't need to download a ready-made unit -and most seem to come from the States but can create one as the unit progresses and student inquiry develops. I might have a couple of starters but then I want children to run the unit! If I do use some NZ lesson plans, I'll need to adapt them for my class and if they're from overseas, I'm pretty certain they won't have a nature of science or capabilities focus.
Well, if you've got this far, well done! I'm happy to send out a pdf with the cards on to help with planning -just email me: paul.ashman@waikato.ac.nz.
Have fun, and enjoy your science for this term!
Paul
I have developed a wee resource with laminate cards that we use to prompt our thinking with units that are for the whole term or longer. I wouldn't go to this length with smaller units (or lesson progressions) although often my lessons for teachers are that thorough simply because I want to support them in their thinking about the science capabilities.
My cards are used really to prompt our thinking rather than have all the answers. The first card is The Big Idea -what's the really big idea that underpins the whole unit. It's the thought that encapsulates science, reading, maths, social sciences, whatever! It's global and probably not an assessment WALT -for example, children appreciate the world around them or children take action.
Next is the NZC Principles, Vision, Values and Key Competencies. I know that these sort of happen all the time, but are there elements that can be deliberately focused on? With my work over the past couple of weeks, teachers have picked out critical and creative thinking themes and sustainability ideas. We also need to look at our own local school curriculum -the values or virtues, etc that the school uses. As with the NZC bits, are there any that we can particularly focus on? I like the idea of starting with these as they need to underpin the unit and the term's teaching.
Because this is a science unit (albeit integrated with other curriculum areas), we'll start with the Context Strands. I've been thinking lots about the idea of shifting from single context strands (i.e. Term Three is "Material World") to topics that can incorporate more than one strand. I might have a focus on one, for example "Planet Earth and Beyond" and the Moon and Sun, but I might be able to develop some ideas in the "Physical World" with light and shadows. Remember, we don't assess student content knowledge, these context strands are the vehicle we use to develop student science capabilities or the nature of science. We still need the contexts to be rich and robust with lots of deep thinking and action happening though.
Now it's the stuff I particularly like! Science capabilities or the nature of science if you prefer. Remember that they are sort of interchangeable -you don't need to use both. The science capabilities can be found on the TKI site (try googling "science capabilities TKI") and again you'll probably be using more than one. I try to get teachers to focus on the capability that might be more suited to that year level so Gather and Interpret Data (G&ID) for the juniors, Use Evidence (UE) for the middles, and Critique Evidence (CE) for the seniors. I know that you need to use G&ID to develop UE thinking and you need both for the CE capability so all will be happening. It's just that as the teacher, I'm focusing on one particular capability, that's what I'm going to be assessing and using for my learning intentions. Of course, we will be looking at Interpreting Representations and possibly Engaged with Science too and they go across the levels.
Onto other curriculum areas... What else can you do with this topic? I like the idea of reading and writing (and oral language too I guess!) all wrapped up in the topic rather than simply independent stories that don't fit what we're studying as well as maths integrated. In a conversation I had last week, we talked about how to integrate reading and science, without losing the reading elements and gaining the idea that students can continue to develop their thinking about how the natural physical world and science itself work. It might be as simple as unpacking tables or diagrams, or did the scientist infer or observe and how do we know from the text...
We can also do some art or technology, etc too. One of the big things with integrating is that we still call science science. It's not topic. We might be doing a big unit on "The Lake" but when we do science-themed activities, we make sure that children realise that. Children are heading to high school without realising that they have had science lessons -they may remember topics but not make the connection. Of course we also want students to know what science is but that's what this whole blog is about!
I also had some extra cards -Tikanga Maaori, Digital Technologies, Citizen Science, Environmental Science, etc to stimulate thinking and further activities.
The final step is resources -where do we find them? They are pretty much everywhere but some ideal places to go is the Science Learning Hub, TKI might have some ideas, Royal Society but also DoC, Landcare as well. DoC's lessons are great but besides that, here are lots of NZ resources for us to use. We don't need to download a ready-made unit -and most seem to come from the States but can create one as the unit progresses and student inquiry develops. I might have a couple of starters but then I want children to run the unit! If I do use some NZ lesson plans, I'll need to adapt them for my class and if they're from overseas, I'm pretty certain they won't have a nature of science or capabilities focus.
Well, if you've got this far, well done! I'm happy to send out a pdf with the cards on to help with planning -just email me: paul.ashman@waikato.ac.nz.
Have fun, and enjoy your science for this term!
Paul
Sunday 15 July 2018
Can just 'play' be enough?
I hope that you have all had a lovely week refreshing and recharging and thinking about some things other than school!
I have just come back from a week of science conferencing in Christchurch listening to educators, teachers and those of us interested in the world of science education. It was a fantastic week and I am particularly heartened to see the move towards the nature of science and the science capabilities at a secondary school level. I think it's important that there's a strong continuity from our Y7/8 science programmes to secondary and having a focus on the nature of science is one way we can be supporting this.
 |
| Canterbury Museum model of Scott Base (one of my Bucket List places!)... the machine in the top right hand corner seems a little bit out of place! |
Whilst I was there, I had the chance to visit the Canterbury Museum which was next door. Lots to see and do and I had to go back to see stuff I had missed the first time! Anne Barker came with me on one of the visits and we walked around the science interactive centre with about a hundred very noisy children! The focus was on light and space and there were quite a few different activities for students to participate in. Anne and I were leading a workshop the next day on 'play-based learning in science' so we were interested to see if children were thinking scientifically as they were playing independently.
My own feeling is that, even though we're wanting children to play/explore/discover on their own, it does need some teacher input in terms of questioning to support children to be curious, to want to investigate further. Without this teacher input, I think that students may become bored, not understand the activity and simply move on to the next quick buzz! I don't so much mean that teachers should be asking the hard science questions (that could be for lesson two instead) but simply enabling that sense of wonder and thinking to support the next session's more scientific focus.It was interesting watching the students as they moved from exhibit to exhibit -many were simply pushing buttons, spinning dials and then running onto the next one. There didn't seem any effort to investigate the purpose of the exhibit or any wondering as to what they were seeing. At one stage, Anne did ask some questions and the child suddenly became more interested as she challenged their thinking as to what was happening.
I know there are those students who are well able to learn in these environments but I think that the majority of the students need those questions and wonderings from us, the teachers to enable a deeper questioning, awe and wonder. There are a few places like the Canterbury Museum around -the Telecom roadshow, MoTaT in Auckland and the Exscite in Hamilton. There's also lots of activities that children can simply 'do' from the internet that produces a 'wow' and that's the end! I was talking to a teacher last term who wanted to do a particular activity because the kids would love it. Of course, that's fine but is there a chance that we could grow the activity further?
 |
| At the Antarctic Centre... and yes of course all those penguins are real! |
I found this on Facebook and thought that there were some interesting ideas here that could be discussed further at a team meeting. It's more geared towards the younger children (I think it might even be ECE) but good for a discussion!
Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)