Science vs science education

Previously, I was writing about knowledge vs the nature of science... sounds like a terrible B movie title! I want to carry on with a bit of a recollection from the other week when I was working in a school. 
We were talking about how to fit science in when the curriculum is so crowded. I talked about simply ensuring there are opportunities for children to develop the capabilities. For example, the school's topic this term is food so the social sciences have stolen the limelight which is a great marriage between culture and identity. It also gets kids sharing their own family recipes, reflecting on the food and the culture it represents, and the biggest kick: eating! Yay!

Food from my culture: England! (BBC website (of course!))

Whilst kids are munching, could we slip in some science? Can children think about what they're tasting and then describe it objectively as well as subjectively? Can we identify ingredients and different tastes that we experience -and critique these, discuss these, write about these? The students are still doing social sciences, but we can use some of the science verbs (notice, observe, describe) as well as infer...
We also talked about reading time and this is what today is about. I ended up describing two different things that could happen in a lesson (and the above is an example). One is "science". Kids are exposed to 'science' as they watch a video or read a Connected article. They probably know some stuff about 'science' -from TVshows or books. They know some facts and interesting ideas that they'll happily share. Part of our work when we're taking science lessons is also exposing students to 'science' -the apple has five chambers in the core because it's a member of the rose family, the candle goes out when you put a jar over it because of the amount of carbon dioxide, not lack of oxygen, and usually heavier things sink faster in water.

 A great way to get children drawing horizontal and vertical cross sections...
I wonder if pears would look similar... (pinterest.com)

I also introduced this idea: "science education". In our discussion, this is the science capabilities or the nature of science. It's the bit where children are learning about science, how scientists work, how to investigate, interpret, build explanations, critique and communicate their findings.

A really great article... Although Level 2, it challenged Year 7 and 8 students...

We talked about that in a reading session, children could read a delightful story about the weather and connections to local stories in a Connected journal. I might discuss the language, look at the pictures, talk about the content of a diagram, how well children have understood the story and their fluency. The students are being exposed to 'science', as it is a science article about the weather. But could I do a bit of 'science education' too? I might get children interpreting the diagrams -what do we think of them, how well do they share the information, and why has the artist or author chosen to use this style of diagram. I might also do a bit of critiquing, a bit of science vocabulary, or even analyse the style of the article... is this really a science article? How can we tell?

So here's the rub... Continue to choose 'science' articles for students. We know they love them! Kids enjoy learning 'stuff' and being fascinated and science is a favourite for a lot of them. But add some 'science education' too. Be deliberate about students developing the science capabilities. It could be just a couple of questions or a part of the discussion!

Have a go!
Paul

Science knowledge and science capabilities... sort of like brothers, I guess...

I've been thinking a wee bit this week about capabilities and knowledge... How do we balance the need to develop student ability in the nature of science objectives (or the science capabilities) as well as develop their science knowledge?
Both are important, and the recent NMSSA resource highlights that students with high achievement in the science capabilities will usually have a good science knowledge as well. If we're doing 'science', then it would be natural to assume we're learning about science concepts, for example, floating and sinking, or exploring sound. 
The curriculum is quite careful in the way it describes what students should be doing and this can be an interesting activity for your staff or team or syndicate to do... highlight all the verbs in the context strands and then discuss these: how do we plan, teach and assess these? For example, Physical World has the verbs explore, describe and represent... In my thinking, explore isn't the same as 'define', it simply means that I will provide activities for students to encounter and experience an idea. If I'm playing with chemical reactions and thinking about how some produce heat (an exothermic reaction), I'm not going to start with a Learning Intention "We are learning how some chemical reactions produce heat". I'll start with introducing the idea through an experiment... what have we found out?, what are we thinking... Hopefully this might lead to questions the students can investigate further, or I might do a couple more activities with similar results. The result of this is students describing the reactions when certain chemicals are mixed. 
That might be far enough -after all the curriculum simply says describe at Level 3 and 4 and then identify and describe patterns at Level 5. I'm not sure that 'describe' would be the same as 'define'. And that's a good point (if I may say so myself!) -have a look at the levels either side of the levels you're aiming for, to get some idea of science knowledge.

The Gather and Interpret Data capability and the Use Evidence capability both have the idea of children observing patterns... what have we noticed that's similar in these activities? What might be happening? Yeah, I might have older children doing a bit of google spotting to grow their ideas but I do want to stay away from transmitting answers and information! I want them, through activities, promoting and developing the science capabilities, to get there on their own with me as the teacher scaffolding, prompting and supporting.
It really is a fine line! With how much there is in the curriculum (again, just look at the Physical World context strand!), I'm not sure our goal should ever be children learning stuff, otherwise, which bits do we take? At Year 3/4, I count almost 30 topics for just those two years! However I do think we need to have units that enable children to get deeper into a concept, eg sound, light, reactions, the solar system... I'm okay, if children haven't quite worked out the difference between exothermic and endothermic, or that water boils at a certain degree. If my unit is all about reactions, then I might provide some more learning opportunities for children to think about the topic more. I'll make sure the scientific vocabulary is around the place for them to see, and I'll use it too. I'll make sure I ask lots of questions too (although not so much so we call this... ex... exo... come on, we talked about this yesterday...). 
But, importantly, I'm not stressed about them 'getting' the concept. I have had arguments as to whether all children should understand magnetism because it's really important... I've just headed back to the curriculum to show it's simply one concept amongst many. I don't think the curriculum writers ever had in their heads, it's critical to learn this concept or this concept, but that here's a pile of different ideas you can use to support students as they learn about science, investigate in science, communicate in science and participate and contribute (the nature of science strands).
The curriculum doesn't have the verb "recall" in the context strands. It has explore, describe, appreciate (imagine trying to assess that one!), group, relate, identify, represent, etc... All these verbs are within the 'learn' verb. Children investigating to learn. And it's this way that we bring in that science knowledge. I really like the way the NZC puts it on p. 28:

It's not worksheets! It's children testing their ideas... so can I get the reaction hotter by adding more damp rid? How do I measure if it is? Do all liquids expand like water does when it's frozen? What's happening in water to make it expand? It's also not teachers wrapping up lessons with so what happened is this and this, because of that and that... and now you all know! I've been in classes with this happening and leant over to ask a student whether they know what the teacher meant (I was actually a bit confused!) with the response that they didn't know either. In fact, ask the children the next day about the transmission and there will be those who can recall it word for word and understand, those who can recall but not really understand and those who were busy looking at a bird out the window so got confused (and yes, it was me, and it was a chaffinch).

A male chaffinch. Like the human species,
the male is the more attractive and louder one. www.ebird.org

Yeah, I'm an internet man... if I start wondering, I generally look online -and yes, I start with primary school science then move my way up as I grow in understanding. But then, I'll also go off and check for myself. I was talking to someone about the candle in the jar experiment (how the candle flame extinguishes when a jar is put over it) this week, the misconceptions and also the ideas behind what's going on. When I read about it online after someone pointed out I was wrong and it had nothing to do with oxygen levels, I also tried out a few experiments: so if it isn't that, and it's that idea instead, this should happen when I do this... This is that investigating and testing ideas of the curriculum.

And for me, that's the happy marriage between the capabilities and knowledge. I've been careful not to get into how much knowledge should juniors have as opposed to the middle and senior classes, that's for another time (although it is interesting that the common verbs at Level 1 and 2 are investigate and explore, not so much define and represent...). I want the children asking questions and I would like to see experiments that challenge students to think deeper and gain a better understanding of the world around them. I don't have a list of compulsory topics eg magnets, electricity and the Moon, as all can help me in growing student ability in the nature of science (which is our compulsory strand, our overarching strand and our unifying strand). I'm okay with children being experts in magnets as long as it's not just knowledge but knowledge gained through "generating and testing ideas, gathering evidence – including by making observations, carrying out investigations and modelling, and communicating and debating with others".

Phew!

Have a great week, everyone!

Science teaching hidden in clear sight...

Just a wee note from my musing this week... and I'm sure that's a quote from some movie I've seen but for the life of me, I can't remember! Mind you, after having a senior student this week talk about the bird's mouth and my asking her for clarification (to which she said 'beak'), I've been thinking about what a bird's head would look like without a beak and whether it does look like a mouth!

http://www.surfbirds.com/community-blogs/birdsobservation/2016/04/09/for-each-food-a-birds-beak/

I was in a Digital Technologies workshop on Monday and was struck by a comment the facilitator said -that, as DT is meant to be integrated, even simply using the vocabulary is developing some of the thinking behind this new curriculum. It got me thinking about science and our, what seems to be, over-crowded curriculum... could we do the same in science?

If students are reading a book that has a science theme, could we ask some questions about what they 'notice', what they might be 'wondering'? Besides comprehension and fluency questions, could we ask questions about the scientists' observations to develop that capability, eg, how do you think the scientist got to that thinking? Can you see any inferences in what the scientist is talking about? What might they have observed that led them to that particular inference? 

Sometimes, I've even got students to be a bit more critical... should scientists say 'a few'? Should there be numbers and percentages, etc? We might read through the article and highlight scientific vocabulary, highlight inferences and observations or even parts that we want to ask more questions about and research further.

One of my favourite water cycle diagrams... there's a lot happening in this one -even for seniors, what do they think is happening and is this a good representation?

The capability, Interpreting Representations, can come into play as well -what do children notice about the diagram / chart / graph? What information might have been missed out (and why might that be)? Could this information be shown in other ways?

And of course there's always those opportunities to go for a wander around the school, engaging in the capabilities, growing student wonder and curiosity and simply enjoying the world around us. I used to love taking my class for a ramble around the school grounds (and sometimes a wee bit off!) and I noticed a real change in their attitude and behaviour, a respect grew, an interest in nature, as well as engaging with the families, coming back to tell me what their koro said about kawakawa trees or the tui nesting at the top... 

I do understand there's a lot that the curriculum shows we should be doing in classes... I wonder if there are some clever ways that we can ensure that this is happening?

Have a fantastic week everyone.

Planning for this term...

As Term Three planning for science topics is upon us (and yes, I wrote Term Two and had to think, "Are we that far into the year?"!), I'm doing some planning with some schools whilst I'm also writing up some interviews around culturally responsive practice so all this is bubbling around together! I thought I'd share some notes that I hope can help you in your planning.
Why?
I want to start with this -we tend to say "We're doing 'energy' or 'the river'" but what does that mean? If science is about developing students' science capabilities, shouldn't this be at least part of the focus? And if we are about improving student achievement, we really need to know what students are able to do so we can plan for the 'where to next' bits!
Assessment is critical and I've been on a bit of a journey this year with another one of our Te Whai Toi Tangata (IPL) facilitators who's a whiz with formative assessment... We can't simply go on just doing science units without knowing where the students are at and what I'm aiming for! Imagine doing that in reading or maths... should we do it in science?
What capability would you like to focus on? What elements of that capability? Are there literacy or maths bits that could be a part of the unit? Can children help construct the success criteria?
In terms of resources out there, the NMSSA have put out some levelled capabilities resources that can help as can the Assessment Resource Bank activities. I also have levelled indicators for the science capabilities that I'm trialling which are a bit more complex.

NMSSA levelled Capabilities resource

The school!
The more I read about schools that seem to be doing amazing things for their students (and getting a reciprocal response from them), the more I see the need to connect to the culture of students as well as the culture of the school. What does the school value and how can this be shown in planning? Most schools have clever anagrams which show eg manaakitanga, respect, attitudes, etc -can these be developed in a science unit? Could there be group work where we can encourage school values? I wrote the word "developed" above because I don't believe that school values can just be told at children, we need deliberate acts of teaching.
What cultures are reflected in the classroom? We do need to ensure that there is a bicultural element so, for me, that's straight in there, but what about the other ethnicities in the class? I was looking at the food topic yesterday, and thought about using the Building Science Concepts resources "Making Bread" and "Preserving Food". I know one school I work with is predominantly Māori, so I thought about using rawena paraoa. I could then ask if there are whānau folk who could come in and help too. I might head off and look at what other cultures in the room use as bread and perhaps we could make those, or better still, ask families to make this food. Yes, it might mean providing some money for this to happen but we're now involving families in school, honouring cultures and engaging students!

The science capability Gather and Interpret Data comes into play now with the students observing, tasting, smelling and older students exploring the recipes: what's going on here? Some use yeast and others don't, why? How do the different ingredients 'work' together? 
If I'm looking at preserving food, I could explore ways that Māori preserved food, and we could explore other cultures' ways to do this. We could experiment ourselves as well as look at current methods and compare -a good chance to experiment! Do all foods preserve? 
The curriculum
Those of you who work with me know I'm mad on the front half of the NZC... Can you develop a Key Competency or Value with this science unit. Again, I'm talking about deliberate actions, not just Oh yeah, the kids are doing lots of thinking so I can tick off that KC! It's about working with the children to better develop that competency..
The NZC is all about the nature of science and we can know we're covering those AOs through focusing on the capabilities. The context strands, eg Living World, are just that -a context... they're just a vehicle for growing student understanding of science. That's not to say there isn't a place for science knowledge development too, there is! As long as it's alongside rather than instead of. 
Sometimes what we think is a science unit is instead a literacy unit researching a science theme. I try to differentiate the two by calling one 'science' and one 'science education'. It doesn't mean the first can't happen, for example, children reading about the moon landings and doing a small project, but unless there's clear capabilities work, it's not really science education. I know that children love reading about science and learning facts, so don't chuck those activities out! In fact, you might even want to think about how you could do something within the activities, perhaps explore how scientists work, how the information was gathered, critique diagrams, etc.   
The resources
I know I talk a bit about the Science Learning Hub, but it is a good place to start! If you're having trouble finding something, email them -they'd love to help. TKI also are a good place to start for capabilities teaching. I still think those arbs are a good resource too -quite a few times I've adapted an assessment task into a learning one! The Building Science Concepts resource, and Making Better Sense books are also good... just remember that those resources were all about knowledge and may need a bit of tweaking to match up with a student agency-type thinking, where the teacher doesn't need to be the font of all knowledge!

I think the community is also vital -they probably know better than Google or I about favourite dishes or how to grow plants in a particular way, what karakia to say, etc.

Anyway, I think that's enough! Have fun planning and do share your ideas with me, I'd love to hear what you're doing. 

Paul

The dreaded science fair... or is that really fair to say (see what I did there?!?!)

I was in a school yesterday and saw the beginnings of planning for science fair projects. We talked briefly about them –how it’s so much work, the ones that get parental help do better, and some children would rather do anything else!

Science is always messy! If it isn't, I'm not sure you're actually doing science!

It made me think about my own science lessons with students… why are they keen to investigate further? Why are they happy to share predictions, record data and posit explanations? I can’t help wondering if the issue is how prepared are children for science fairs? When I was chatting to a Year 9 science teacher (and this is a while ago now!), we talked about how ill-prepared some Year 8 students are coming into college science. I assumed they were referring to science knowledge but they weren’t! It was about the skills and concepts, about children knowing how to measure carefully, gather accurate data, understand variables and share findings in a form of writing that reflects scientific thinking. They felt that children may be doing science, for example, volcanoes or native birds but they don’t know about science. Studying native birds by looking up a bird on the internet or reading a book may not really develop the science capabilities.

The art of catching bubbles so they don't pop!

I was given the opportunity to work with a small country school supporting the children with their own science fair projects. We were already doing some capabilities PLD work so teachers knew what I was talking about but the students had lost interest in their own efforts. I spent a very nice couple of days talking to students, getting them to share their ideas and what they had done. I was struck by the thought that the children weren’t really sure what they were doing! By the end of our chats all were enthused and keen to continue. We had discussed how to investigate, what they were wanting to find out and how they would know if their hypothesis was right.

bubble snakes in action!

Doing a lot of one-off lessons may support students developing the capabilities. However, I know that doing a 2 to 3 lesson sequence, giving children the chance to investigate, hypothesize, collate data and generate explanations may be more motivational and effective. Today I was modelling in one school and I talked to one teacher about a good science lesson… could having a question to frame the lesson/ investigation engage students more? For example, “I wonder if a larger bubble blower will always create the best bubbles” … or challenging students (and we all know how boys enjoy competition!), for example, “who could create the best bubble blower and prove it?” This second one is a neat question because it’s ambiguous! Is “best” biggest? Or 3-dimensional? Or longest lasting? Do small bubbles last longer so are best?

This kind of science (and longer topics that engage students by them leading the inquiry and not being given a lesson to complete!) may prepare students for science fairs. Although a lot of us seem to be allergic to science fairs, I think that they can be a great assessment tool… my science capability indicators could be used for children to self-assess, teachers to conference assess or even for judgement criteria! If children know about science and understand how science itself works (NZC Science essence statement) then they could be more excited about carrying out investigations in science… like a scientist.

Oh, and by the way, juniors can do science fairs too! They're a great whole class activity!

Keep sciencing on! And have a fantastic, refreshing break!

Interpreting Rivers

I'm working with a school in the south of Taranaki where it is VERY cold! I do like being away from data and wi-fi and TV although I'm ready to head home for my creature comforts!!!

The school is doing a great job with involving scientists (the students are monitoring pH, clarity and river flow), DT experts (students are flying drones weekly to take photos of their local river) and the regional council. The mission is monitoring their local river that flows straight past their school. I'm really impressed with their efforts (and it is a lot of work for the school) and then the principal showed me these fantastic graphics their scientist had emailed them and I fell in love!

They're showing catchments of different rivers in the Taranaki region and just look spectacular. We were talking yesterday about how to use these images (I'm wondering if students could even work out what these images are showing!) and thought about older children modelling their river and valley with clay. The images also show the mountains, hills and obviously valleys -can children spot these?

Looking through these images, I have lots of questions! This one above which shows an interesting view of Taranaki -it does look like a flower! Does this also show lava flows? I also wonder how accurate the images are, especially the tiny branches -are they just a representation or accurate? Could children identify particular rivers? I'm working in a school along the green river lower right corner!

I know these images are a little blurry but I was really showing them more as an idea than 'use these!'. The focus here is the capability Interpreting Representations. If you click on the link, it'll take you to the TKI website where there's a lot of information and activities to support teachers learning about this capability. It's one I like as it links nicely into the Writing and Reading components of literacy so I can tick off a couple of boxes at once! It's an important skill to have, to read information shown in different ways as well as critique these representations.

From the TKI site, these are good focus questions to share with the children:

• What does this representation tell us?
• What is left out?
• How does this representation get the message across?
• Why is it presented in this particular way?

And here's my own thinking about what we could expect to see from students -I've also used Rose Hipkins' Coherent Pathways and the TKI site for ideas too. Remember, it's just my thinking, not a standardised assessment tool! I'm really not sure why it's blurry but it's sort of legible! The first column is Y1-3, second column Y4-6 and the last one is Y7-8.

Do have a play with students interpreting representations but also get them to make their own! What do they want to share? How well have they shared that information? Can others understand it?

Have a great rest of the week, keep on sciencing... and now in literacy time!

Paul

Assessing Diagrams

Playing with desk-bubbles... my own term, I think!

Almost the end of another term! I have had a lovely time this past week exploring junior concepts at Level 3 and 4, for example, floating and sinking, bubbles, etc. I really like the idea of this so we can ensure that at least some concepts can be extended and developed further. Of course there is space for topics to be introduced at a senior level only but children will have all the processes and skills in place to grab hold of brand new concepts! I had to share a lovely diagram one of the students created to show how a bubble snake is 'made'... it fits with today, as the topic is diagrams!

A junior student's diagram of how to form a bubble snake -nice labelling!

This week's post is a little different. I've written it all as a google slides presentation (click the link) as I could add photos and ideas a little easier. I'm also curious as to whether this is helpful as I'm hoping that schools could use these in a staff or team meeting, or at least some of the slides! I think we need to be discussing ideas like this to be able to collaborate and extend their thinking.

Anyway, do tell me if this is useful. This is the second slides document I've done -the first was on cicadas or kihikihi, and I'd love to hear if you have used it, or topics for another one, or even improvements! As always, if you do use it, please acknowledge the author... me!

Keep sciencing
Paul