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...

• 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

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!

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/

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.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/

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: 

http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/01/skin-deep-one-skin-fits-all-approach-to.html

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...).

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/all-yesterdays-book-and-launch-event/

So enjoy!
Keep on sciencing!

Paul

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!

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

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 

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.

Our work... and I don't know why it's on this angle either!

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

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. 

A giant spider seen on the log... okay it wasn't "giant" but was really big -about 2 cms!

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'm assuming these are all eggs with the ones on the left fresh -but not sure from what! Slugs? Snails?

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!

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!

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