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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)