It's important to discuss the value of practical work as science teachers, but we need to be aware of who is watching and what might be inferred.
Back in 2009/10 the target for our department from our 'mock-sted' was that there should be more practical work in lessons. We all knew it wasn't relevant as the previous one had been during the summer time when most classes were preparing for exams. I did a practical activity during my mock-sted lesson at the insistence of the HoF and it was rubbish as it didn't relate to the lesson at all. The students didn't see how it helped them and they were right. This sort of practical work we can do without. Practical work for the sake of it.
However, the pendulum has swung in a lot of places. There are senior management teams who see the share of the capitation that science departments get as unfair. There are those that observe lessons and see students collecting and returning practical equipment as a waste of time that they could have been redrafting an answer to an exam question. Practical lessons are too chaotic for a non-specialist to observe as being outstanding.
These departments are being pressurised in various ways (lesson observations, budget being cut, directly told) to stop doing practical work in favour of more written work, more mock exams and more delivery from PowerPoint (textbooks and worksheets cost money). These lessons look more ordered and are easier to show that progress has been made.
We have to make sure that in making the argument that a practical activity is not the only way to teach science, we are not saying that practical activities are not needed at all to teach science. And we need to be making the argument that schools have responsibility to fund the departments properly, give adequate technical support, have good schemes of work and ensure that services in classrooms are maintained. They should also give staff access to appropriate subject CPD.
Teachers should have the right to use their own professional judgement to use practical work if they so choose.
Showing posts with label practical work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label practical work. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Tuesday, 27 December 2016
Practical Work in Science
NB: borrowed heavily from the work of Abrahams, Millar, Reiss and Osborne.
There are a lot of reasons to do practical work in science lessons. Lighting a Bunsen burner is a right of passage. 'Blowing stuff up' is something that primary students look forward to when they come to secondary school. But does it do what we think it does? Does the way that we teach it have the effect we would like?
(Spoiler: not everything, but that doesn't mean we should give up on it).
Does it promote interest and motivation towards science? It makes lessons more 'fun', but doesn't do a lot to promote motivation towards science long term. My anecdotal evidence would agree with that. I did mathematical physics at university because I really didn't like practical work. I didn't like it because I already knew what I was going to find out from it. When I got to university the practical physics lecturers were dismayed - practical physics is the 'truth' (for want of a better word) and the mathematical things that describe it are contrived by humans. Oh. I find that students often long for the 'fun' of doing a practical and when there are not many sometimes can be turned off by the lack of the anticipated excitement.
Does practical work help to develop skills? It depends what is meant by skill. If by skill it is meant 'manipulative skill' of using the equipment, then yes it does make a difference. If you are learning to do something or use something then doing it helps. The real challenge here will be to the GCSE examiners in writing papers that test this. If we are talking about transferable problem solving skills or creativity then practical work does not seem to have an impact here either.
Does it enhance the understanding of scientific ideas? Not very well. The use of practical does not improve the performance of students in pen and paper tests. Although students carry out investigations, following instructions well and even making appropriate observations, they often cannot link the practical to the subject being learned. There have been a lot of projects trying to improve teaching using practical work. http://www.gettingpractical.org.uk But of course it is extremely difficult to change the practice of science teachers and projects like this haven't had a great impact.
Does practical work develop understanding of the nature of science? Hopefully with the new GCSE it can, but prior to that we students were looking for the 'right' answer and this isn't how science (should) works. We often teach about experiments and theory in such a way as to confuse students about the interplay between the two. Practical work in school is not representative of the way that scientists really work.
So should we bin practicals?
No. We should get better at them.
Firstly, we are required to do practical work at GCSE and A-level. As educators we would be in trouble if we did not give our students the opportunity to do the required and core practicals. This is to ensure that students do have the manipulative skills that practical work does teach. Universities are keen that students arrive being able to use equipment and the best way to teach this is through practical.
Secondly, we should be allowing students to experience scientific phenomena for themselves. Experimental work is an important feature of science, after all observations are what we are trying to explain. However, the science is often counter intuitive and therefore you cannot understand everything from observation. The teacher is needed as a mediator.
Thirdly, we should use practical work to help students understand enquiry. However, again this is not something we do well. How many of us have the time to allow students to work through an entire investigation and analysis of the results? Before an investigation it is important that students have a good understanding of the question they are asking and are able to select from the different types of enquiry which is the most appropriate. How many teachers know what the five types of enquiry are? (Other than fair testing).
And finally, we can do better at teaching students about science phenomena through practical work. But we have to be clear about our expectations for the outcomes for students, both from the practical work and what they can do and apply afterwards, particularly at secondary level.
Further reading (may need to be an ASE member to access all of these).
May 2015 School Science Review (practical work theme): http://www.ase.org.uk/journals/school-science-review/2015/05/357/
September 2009 School Science Review, Millar and Abrahams, Making Practical Work More Effective: Practical work: making it more effective (warning may download directly)
Abrahams and Reiss Effective Practical Science (Bloomsbury) Amazon Enhancing Practical Science
Abrahams: Practical Work in Secondary Science (bloomsbury) Amazon Practical Work in Secondary Science
December 2010 School Science Review, untangling what teachers mean by the motivational value of practical work. Untangling what teachers mean by the motivational value of practical work (warning may download directly)
Article about the 5 types of enquiry: IT'S NOT FAIR - The Association for Science Education (warning may download directly)
Education in Chemistry, Practical Work a New Opportunity: https://eic.rsc.org/cpd/practical-science/2000009.article
Getting Practical: http://www.gettingpractical.org.uk
There are a lot of reasons to do practical work in science lessons. Lighting a Bunsen burner is a right of passage. 'Blowing stuff up' is something that primary students look forward to when they come to secondary school. But does it do what we think it does? Does the way that we teach it have the effect we would like?
(Spoiler: not everything, but that doesn't mean we should give up on it).
Does it promote interest and motivation towards science? It makes lessons more 'fun', but doesn't do a lot to promote motivation towards science long term. My anecdotal evidence would agree with that. I did mathematical physics at university because I really didn't like practical work. I didn't like it because I already knew what I was going to find out from it. When I got to university the practical physics lecturers were dismayed - practical physics is the 'truth' (for want of a better word) and the mathematical things that describe it are contrived by humans. Oh. I find that students often long for the 'fun' of doing a practical and when there are not many sometimes can be turned off by the lack of the anticipated excitement.
Does practical work help to develop skills? It depends what is meant by skill. If by skill it is meant 'manipulative skill' of using the equipment, then yes it does make a difference. If you are learning to do something or use something then doing it helps. The real challenge here will be to the GCSE examiners in writing papers that test this. If we are talking about transferable problem solving skills or creativity then practical work does not seem to have an impact here either.
Does it enhance the understanding of scientific ideas? Not very well. The use of practical does not improve the performance of students in pen and paper tests. Although students carry out investigations, following instructions well and even making appropriate observations, they often cannot link the practical to the subject being learned. There have been a lot of projects trying to improve teaching using practical work. http://www.gettingpractical.org.uk But of course it is extremely difficult to change the practice of science teachers and projects like this haven't had a great impact.
Does practical work develop understanding of the nature of science? Hopefully with the new GCSE it can, but prior to that we students were looking for the 'right' answer and this isn't how science (should) works. We often teach about experiments and theory in such a way as to confuse students about the interplay between the two. Practical work in school is not representative of the way that scientists really work.
So should we bin practicals?
No. We should get better at them.
Firstly, we are required to do practical work at GCSE and A-level. As educators we would be in trouble if we did not give our students the opportunity to do the required and core practicals. This is to ensure that students do have the manipulative skills that practical work does teach. Universities are keen that students arrive being able to use equipment and the best way to teach this is through practical.
Secondly, we should be allowing students to experience scientific phenomena for themselves. Experimental work is an important feature of science, after all observations are what we are trying to explain. However, the science is often counter intuitive and therefore you cannot understand everything from observation. The teacher is needed as a mediator.
Thirdly, we should use practical work to help students understand enquiry. However, again this is not something we do well. How many of us have the time to allow students to work through an entire investigation and analysis of the results? Before an investigation it is important that students have a good understanding of the question they are asking and are able to select from the different types of enquiry which is the most appropriate. How many teachers know what the five types of enquiry are? (Other than fair testing).
And finally, we can do better at teaching students about science phenomena through practical work. But we have to be clear about our expectations for the outcomes for students, both from the practical work and what they can do and apply afterwards, particularly at secondary level.
Further reading (may need to be an ASE member to access all of these).
May 2015 School Science Review (practical work theme): http://www.ase.org.uk/journals/school-science-review/2015/05/357/
September 2009 School Science Review, Millar and Abrahams, Making Practical Work More Effective: Practical work: making it more effective (warning may download directly)
Abrahams and Reiss Effective Practical Science (Bloomsbury) Amazon Enhancing Practical Science
Abrahams: Practical Work in Secondary Science (bloomsbury) Amazon Practical Work in Secondary Science
December 2010 School Science Review, untangling what teachers mean by the motivational value of practical work. Untangling what teachers mean by the motivational value of practical work (warning may download directly)
Article about the 5 types of enquiry: IT'S NOT FAIR - The Association for Science Education (warning may download directly)
Education in Chemistry, Practical Work a New Opportunity: https://eic.rsc.org/cpd/practical-science/2000009.article
Getting Practical: http://www.gettingpractical.org.uk
Thursday, 5 March 2015
Climate for perfect practical work
If I am hard on myself then I would say that I could be more organised. The 'clever' teachers talk about working memory and my experience and own conclusion lead me to agree with the idea you can only remember so much at once, at least it seems to hold true for me. So I have to have routines to help me and if I get out of those I begin to struggle.
As a science teacher I 'have' to hand in my practical requests on Thursday for the following week. This is particularly true for me as our physics technician doesn't work on a Friday. So I need time on Wednesday or Thursday to write my lesson requests. I can change my mind, but it needs to be with appropriate notice depending on the practical lesson. I imagine other science teachers recognise this.
When I started teaching this was a bit of a struggle, especially when I wasn't as familiar as I am now with the structure of the curriculum. Within a year I had developed so that I thought ahead to the next six lessons or so to look at what we were doing. This has always been important to me to help with organisation of myself for practical work.
A good scheme of work really helps when it comes to ordering practical work. It helps to know that the practical being completed is well matched to the learning objectives and that the equipment list in the documentation is complete and detailed. Not having a stirring rod, forgetting to order the batteries, or not being given enough stop watches can cause a problem in real activities. It helps to know that on Thursday I can write an equipment list without having to deeply plan my lesson as might not know exactly the form it will take (for a variety of reasons) at that point.
I don't always go to the scheme of work, as Keith Gibbs' book has really helped me as a physics teacher, as well as the practical biology/chemistry/physics sites that are hosted by Nuffield which are excellent resources.
A technician who understand what you are trying to do is invaluable to doing good quality practical work in lessons. Anyone who has tried to complete an electricity practical where the majority of the leads don't work or orders sodium hydrogen carbonate and forgets to ask for spatulas is always grateful when the technician adds them to the order anyway or checks the leads before hand. A technician who understands and cares about what happens with the equipment once it leaves the prep room is worth their weight in gold.
The last aspect of the preparation for a practical lesson that is key, is the availability of equipment itself. In the past there have been experiments that I have not been able to do because of a missing piece of equipment. A broken oscilloscope or van der Graaf, a ripple tank with most of the accessories missing, or insufficient leads, batteries, bulbs, stopwatches so the class can't do the experiment. Lessons can quickly descend into chaos with enough working equipment. In the most recent ofsted report group working in science was pointed out as having the potential to allow students to sit back. It is a reality sometimes to work in groups of four, but it is far from ideal. (Working individually also has it's limits when H&S related to space is considered).
I am extremely fortunate to work in a department where the previous head of physics has ensured that we have an wide and varied range of equipment. When I ask the technician 'do we have...?' only once we have not. Sometimes we even have two! Part of this circumstance is due to the attitude of our students, they return the items at the end of the lesson and very rarely is a stop watch or thermometer lost.
Organising practical work is an added dimension to behaviour management for science teachers. There are a few aspects to this. Getting instructions across is probably the second most important factor in ensuring that practical work is valuable to learning. (First being getting the equipment in the first place, without this the rest is irrelevant). To do this well it would be great if teachers had the time to practice all experiments, but that isn't easy. I have said this a lot, but I am finding a video of the demonstration is far more effective than a worksheet with instructions. But it takes time and confidence to prepare.
Deciding how to arrange the room is also a big factor. Again a technician can help with this. Will all the equipment be on a trolley, spread around the room, already sorted into a tray per group? And deciding what students should do when they return equipment is another. I don't find it too much at my current school, but whole experiments left in sinks was a major feature on my first school. (More time for off task behaviour while miss clears up). Often stopping the class towards the end of the practical to give this set of instructions can be more difficult than setting them off. Unsupportive technicians criticising teachers for returning 'messy trollies' also doesn't help. Unfortunately we all have to learn, including teachers learning how to manage practical lessons, putting off inexperienced teachers because the dirty and clean glassware got mixed up does not create the right climate for practical work.
The teacher has to have the subject knowledge to understand the practical work. When an electrical circuit does work, when the trace doesn't appear on the oscilloscope first time, quickly being able to predict the end point of a titration (when you know both concentrations yourself), understanding that shaking alcohol thermometers is a bad idea, realising when a round bottomed flask is more appropriate to a flat one. Those are simple examples. Why does one group get a curved graph, yet another a straight line? Why might a group find a silver beaker cools quicker than a black one?
Without understanding the purpose and science behind the experiment or demonstration yourself it is difficult enough to explain it, but also trying to concentrate on the young people in the room makes it doubly so.
So with a well stocked prep room, a supportive and knowledgable technician team, a good scheme of work, time to practice unfamiliar experiments, strong subject knowledge and strong pedagogical knowledge good quality practical work where students learn and make progress is possible.
As a science teacher I 'have' to hand in my practical requests on Thursday for the following week. This is particularly true for me as our physics technician doesn't work on a Friday. So I need time on Wednesday or Thursday to write my lesson requests. I can change my mind, but it needs to be with appropriate notice depending on the practical lesson. I imagine other science teachers recognise this.
When I started teaching this was a bit of a struggle, especially when I wasn't as familiar as I am now with the structure of the curriculum. Within a year I had developed so that I thought ahead to the next six lessons or so to look at what we were doing. This has always been important to me to help with organisation of myself for practical work.
A good scheme of work really helps when it comes to ordering practical work. It helps to know that the practical being completed is well matched to the learning objectives and that the equipment list in the documentation is complete and detailed. Not having a stirring rod, forgetting to order the batteries, or not being given enough stop watches can cause a problem in real activities. It helps to know that on Thursday I can write an equipment list without having to deeply plan my lesson as might not know exactly the form it will take (for a variety of reasons) at that point.
I don't always go to the scheme of work, as Keith Gibbs' book has really helped me as a physics teacher, as well as the practical biology/chemistry/physics sites that are hosted by Nuffield which are excellent resources.
A technician who understand what you are trying to do is invaluable to doing good quality practical work in lessons. Anyone who has tried to complete an electricity practical where the majority of the leads don't work or orders sodium hydrogen carbonate and forgets to ask for spatulas is always grateful when the technician adds them to the order anyway or checks the leads before hand. A technician who understands and cares about what happens with the equipment once it leaves the prep room is worth their weight in gold.
The last aspect of the preparation for a practical lesson that is key, is the availability of equipment itself. In the past there have been experiments that I have not been able to do because of a missing piece of equipment. A broken oscilloscope or van der Graaf, a ripple tank with most of the accessories missing, or insufficient leads, batteries, bulbs, stopwatches so the class can't do the experiment. Lessons can quickly descend into chaos with enough working equipment. In the most recent ofsted report group working in science was pointed out as having the potential to allow students to sit back. It is a reality sometimes to work in groups of four, but it is far from ideal. (Working individually also has it's limits when H&S related to space is considered).
I am extremely fortunate to work in a department where the previous head of physics has ensured that we have an wide and varied range of equipment. When I ask the technician 'do we have...?' only once we have not. Sometimes we even have two! Part of this circumstance is due to the attitude of our students, they return the items at the end of the lesson and very rarely is a stop watch or thermometer lost.
Organising practical work is an added dimension to behaviour management for science teachers. There are a few aspects to this. Getting instructions across is probably the second most important factor in ensuring that practical work is valuable to learning. (First being getting the equipment in the first place, without this the rest is irrelevant). To do this well it would be great if teachers had the time to practice all experiments, but that isn't easy. I have said this a lot, but I am finding a video of the demonstration is far more effective than a worksheet with instructions. But it takes time and confidence to prepare.
Deciding how to arrange the room is also a big factor. Again a technician can help with this. Will all the equipment be on a trolley, spread around the room, already sorted into a tray per group? And deciding what students should do when they return equipment is another. I don't find it too much at my current school, but whole experiments left in sinks was a major feature on my first school. (More time for off task behaviour while miss clears up). Often stopping the class towards the end of the practical to give this set of instructions can be more difficult than setting them off. Unsupportive technicians criticising teachers for returning 'messy trollies' also doesn't help. Unfortunately we all have to learn, including teachers learning how to manage practical lessons, putting off inexperienced teachers because the dirty and clean glassware got mixed up does not create the right climate for practical work.
The teacher has to have the subject knowledge to understand the practical work. When an electrical circuit does work, when the trace doesn't appear on the oscilloscope first time, quickly being able to predict the end point of a titration (when you know both concentrations yourself), understanding that shaking alcohol thermometers is a bad idea, realising when a round bottomed flask is more appropriate to a flat one. Those are simple examples. Why does one group get a curved graph, yet another a straight line? Why might a group find a silver beaker cools quicker than a black one?
Without understanding the purpose and science behind the experiment or demonstration yourself it is difficult enough to explain it, but also trying to concentrate on the young people in the room makes it doubly so.
So with a well stocked prep room, a supportive and knowledgable technician team, a good scheme of work, time to practice unfamiliar experiments, strong subject knowledge and strong pedagogical knowledge good quality practical work where students learn and make progress is possible.
Friday, 2 January 2015
Pass/Fail practical assessment part of 2015 GCSE science
I have been kind of whining about the fact that we shouldn't have the whole idea of tracking practical work throughout Year 10 and 11 and then deciding if students pass or fail at the end of that. I understand why people think it will be a better system than we have now.
What I think is that it won't improve it enough to be useful.
Either you are a teacher who believes that practical has an important place in science teaching and learning. That allowing students to experience investigations and make discoveries in an authentic way is valuable to the development of students understanding. Or you are in a position where practical work is not, well, practical for whatever reason.
Either you are going to do practical work because of its value. Or you are not. And if, as I suspect, you are not going to be moderated every year then either you are going to do practical work because you feel it is valuable or you are going to do just enough to cover your backside just in case.* You will find a way that involves the least amount of effort (this is not about laziness) and tick the boxes. My conclusion from this is that there is little value in the pass/fail addition to GCSE science.
A far better way to encourage practical work in science, if indeed that is what we want is to create a curriculum that lends itself to valuable practical work. (When I say 'we' I mean the exam boards as the curriculum is now in place).
In the specification I follow too many of the suggested activities don't actually teach the specification statements. Why on Earth am I going to take time out of a busy teaching curriculum to teach something that isn't actually going to be examined and might actually distract my students? We'll observe refraction because they need to know about it, we'll look at the relationship between wire length and resistance because it is explicitly written about in the specification. If I am teaching about stars I am not going to make a telescope unless it is important that my students know the composition of a telescope. (They don't in Gateway). I am not going to get the whole class to create wind turbines if my one demonstration will be sufficient.
When we moved to the current specification styles on 2006, I hated it. I hated it for exactly this reason. Bitty, incoherent and no time to go into detail before you moved on. Don't get static electricity? Never mind we're studying half lives now. Practical work was often irrelevant, particularly in core science. (I think I do one class practical in the whole of P2). By the time we get to additional science students are not interested in getting out of their seats in lessons.
If we return to a curriculum where we can teach topics together and the specification builds from simple ideas to those that are more complex we can start to use practical activities more in our teaching. I don't like to run a lesson on sun cream resistance into a lesson on ultrasound to make space for an investigation. However, I would be more inclined to do that if the topics were related.
When I taught pre-2006 AQA specification I was able to decide which statements went in each lesson. In the post-2006 OCR Gateway specifications that has not been practical to do.** If the new specifications allow more flexibility (and because they are terminal they should) then more practical work and more importantly more valuable practical work will be able to be carried out. I am actually quite excited about this.
So lets use the curriculum to encourage practical work, lets give time to teachers to teach students about 'how science works' and lets accept that good teachers need less constraints to do a good job and poor teachers will find ways around them.
*Something that sticks in my memory is an OCR IAU examiner telling a group on a course he was leading that there were many schools whom never allowed the students to do their own practical work in the data task and gave every child the fall back data. There are schools out there doing everything they can to make practical assessment as straight forward as possible for themselves. In a way I can't blame them, it is an administrative nightmare and we should be trying to cut this for teachers wherever possible.
**Partly because both the schools I have taught it at have 70 minute lessons, and I found that 50 minute lessons mean pace in lessons is high, but there is more time to stop and consolidate at a latter date. And partly because the specification is split into 8 sections per module, and each section should take a week to teach.
What I think is that it won't improve it enough to be useful.
Either you are a teacher who believes that practical has an important place in science teaching and learning. That allowing students to experience investigations and make discoveries in an authentic way is valuable to the development of students understanding. Or you are in a position where practical work is not, well, practical for whatever reason.
Either you are going to do practical work because of its value. Or you are not. And if, as I suspect, you are not going to be moderated every year then either you are going to do practical work because you feel it is valuable or you are going to do just enough to cover your backside just in case.* You will find a way that involves the least amount of effort (this is not about laziness) and tick the boxes. My conclusion from this is that there is little value in the pass/fail addition to GCSE science.
A far better way to encourage practical work in science, if indeed that is what we want is to create a curriculum that lends itself to valuable practical work. (When I say 'we' I mean the exam boards as the curriculum is now in place).
In the specification I follow too many of the suggested activities don't actually teach the specification statements. Why on Earth am I going to take time out of a busy teaching curriculum to teach something that isn't actually going to be examined and might actually distract my students? We'll observe refraction because they need to know about it, we'll look at the relationship between wire length and resistance because it is explicitly written about in the specification. If I am teaching about stars I am not going to make a telescope unless it is important that my students know the composition of a telescope. (They don't in Gateway). I am not going to get the whole class to create wind turbines if my one demonstration will be sufficient.
When we moved to the current specification styles on 2006, I hated it. I hated it for exactly this reason. Bitty, incoherent and no time to go into detail before you moved on. Don't get static electricity? Never mind we're studying half lives now. Practical work was often irrelevant, particularly in core science. (I think I do one class practical in the whole of P2). By the time we get to additional science students are not interested in getting out of their seats in lessons.
If we return to a curriculum where we can teach topics together and the specification builds from simple ideas to those that are more complex we can start to use practical activities more in our teaching. I don't like to run a lesson on sun cream resistance into a lesson on ultrasound to make space for an investigation. However, I would be more inclined to do that if the topics were related.
When I taught pre-2006 AQA specification I was able to decide which statements went in each lesson. In the post-2006 OCR Gateway specifications that has not been practical to do.** If the new specifications allow more flexibility (and because they are terminal they should) then more practical work and more importantly more valuable practical work will be able to be carried out. I am actually quite excited about this.
So lets use the curriculum to encourage practical work, lets give time to teachers to teach students about 'how science works' and lets accept that good teachers need less constraints to do a good job and poor teachers will find ways around them.
*Something that sticks in my memory is an OCR IAU examiner telling a group on a course he was leading that there were many schools whom never allowed the students to do their own practical work in the data task and gave every child the fall back data. There are schools out there doing everything they can to make practical assessment as straight forward as possible for themselves. In a way I can't blame them, it is an administrative nightmare and we should be trying to cut this for teachers wherever possible.
**Partly because both the schools I have taught it at have 70 minute lessons, and I found that 50 minute lessons mean pace in lessons is high, but there is more time to stop and consolidate at a latter date. And partly because the specification is split into 8 sections per module, and each section should take a week to teach.
Wednesday, 31 December 2014
Practical Work in Science Lessons
In this blog post I wanted to give myself an opportunity to consider practical work and think through the current state of my own practice. I am aware that I am probably better than I think I am at doing all the things that as science teachers we set ourselves to do. However, in that difficult juggling act of teaching I strive to reflect on all areas.
As part of my work in thinking about the key stage 3 curriculum I wrote myself a list of the techniques that I would expect students to be able to do at the end of key stage 3.
I am also reminded of a discussion about the separating salt from rock salt lesson, trying to persuade colleagues that if students get nothing else from the lesson they should be learning about how to draw scientific diagrams. There is no other lesson I can think of that uses quite the range of equipment in Year 7.
I understand from reading I have done and CPD sessions I have attended that it is desirable to have specific objectives when teaching practical skills as well as the objectives you would have when teaching knowledge. So I would like make sure we have an idea of the expectations of what students should be able to do with equipment, and not just general statements like 'fair testing' and 'name variables'.
I cannot be the only teacher who has no trouble when students are asked to use a stop watch. I have taken to repeating 'do not stop the stop watch' over and over during practical explanations, as a result of struggling with Year 9 groups. And I am now finding myself explaining how to read a stop watch after Year 10 and 11 students wrote down things like 00:15.34 as a recording for time. "That's what the stop watch says". Indeed, but what does it mean?
Don't get me started on setting up clamp stands!
Although I am probably only frustrated by one group within a class and only frustrated in a small proportion of lessons it is still enough to get me to think about the issue.
I have worked in a school that had competency booklets. What a blinking nightmare. How can I assess the work of 24 students there are then at the end of the lesson without specifically designing a 15 minute plenary that doesn't require my support while I go round and sign these booklets off with a comment, date and my name? It isn't all the practical in reality. Plus these competences were generic and designed around the parts of an investigation and therefore more subjective.
On top of that we had no scheme of work (quite usual in this school) and therefore matching a skill to a lesson was my choice and not mapped out. Perhaps if I didn't have so much thinking to do in the lesson planning... No one checked, no one talked about them, so I forgot about it.
I think in the 6 years since then technology makes it more practical for students to compile their own evidence of technical ability. And perhaps this could be assessed outside of a formal qualification framework?
I think it is important that students do learn to use the equipment properly and recognise limitations and appropriateness during key stage 3. I want my students to learn science from their practical work and I don't think this will be easy if they are grappling with the uses of the equipment too.
So, isn't what I say obvious? Well, yes. So why can't some of my Year 11 students adequately write down a time from a stop watch?
I think partly because the curriculum taught does not encourage the development and consolidation of practical techniques. One lesson on lighting a Bunsen does not make you an expert on heating for the rest of your school career. And partly because we are already doing too much in one lesson. A lesson on voltage is about making observations and drawing conclusions, interpreting diagrams, creating circuits, drawing circuits, using symbols and having a grasp of what voltage is, as well as using a voltmeter. Sometimes that voltmeter is actually a multimeter - how complicated.
What do I need to do?
Slow down and remember that teaching some of it well is better in the long run than teaching all of it badly.
Focus on the technique students are learning. Use starters and other short activities to establish basics like looking at scales before starting practical work.
Create video tutorials for using equipment to help introduce ideas in a clear way.
Question students during lessons about the techniques they are using, why it is or isn't effective as if that matters.
Encourage the reflection by students on their practical work by including it as part of lessons and takeaway homework tasks.
In the long term consider blogging as a method of keeping practical diaries.
But first I must get to grips with the new curriculum so that I can see the key places for development, consolidating and extending use of techniques.
I do think that practical work is important, not necessarily to help with learning or understanding of abstract scientific concepts, but because students should not take things as face value. It is through experimenting that scientific discoveries are made or confirmed, and students should experience that as authentically as possible.
As part of my work in thinking about the key stage 3 curriculum I wrote myself a list of the techniques that I would expect students to be able to do at the end of key stage 3.
I am also reminded of a discussion about the separating salt from rock salt lesson, trying to persuade colleagues that if students get nothing else from the lesson they should be learning about how to draw scientific diagrams. There is no other lesson I can think of that uses quite the range of equipment in Year 7.
I understand from reading I have done and CPD sessions I have attended that it is desirable to have specific objectives when teaching practical skills as well as the objectives you would have when teaching knowledge. So I would like make sure we have an idea of the expectations of what students should be able to do with equipment, and not just general statements like 'fair testing' and 'name variables'.
I cannot be the only teacher who has no trouble when students are asked to use a stop watch. I have taken to repeating 'do not stop the stop watch' over and over during practical explanations, as a result of struggling with Year 9 groups. And I am now finding myself explaining how to read a stop watch after Year 10 and 11 students wrote down things like 00:15.34 as a recording for time. "That's what the stop watch says". Indeed, but what does it mean?
Don't get me started on setting up clamp stands!
Although I am probably only frustrated by one group within a class and only frustrated in a small proportion of lessons it is still enough to get me to think about the issue.
I have worked in a school that had competency booklets. What a blinking nightmare. How can I assess the work of 24 students there are then at the end of the lesson without specifically designing a 15 minute plenary that doesn't require my support while I go round and sign these booklets off with a comment, date and my name? It isn't all the practical in reality. Plus these competences were generic and designed around the parts of an investigation and therefore more subjective.
On top of that we had no scheme of work (quite usual in this school) and therefore matching a skill to a lesson was my choice and not mapped out. Perhaps if I didn't have so much thinking to do in the lesson planning... No one checked, no one talked about them, so I forgot about it.
I think in the 6 years since then technology makes it more practical for students to compile their own evidence of technical ability. And perhaps this could be assessed outside of a formal qualification framework?
I think it is important that students do learn to use the equipment properly and recognise limitations and appropriateness during key stage 3. I want my students to learn science from their practical work and I don't think this will be easy if they are grappling with the uses of the equipment too.
So, isn't what I say obvious? Well, yes. So why can't some of my Year 11 students adequately write down a time from a stop watch?
I think partly because the curriculum taught does not encourage the development and consolidation of practical techniques. One lesson on lighting a Bunsen does not make you an expert on heating for the rest of your school career. And partly because we are already doing too much in one lesson. A lesson on voltage is about making observations and drawing conclusions, interpreting diagrams, creating circuits, drawing circuits, using symbols and having a grasp of what voltage is, as well as using a voltmeter. Sometimes that voltmeter is actually a multimeter - how complicated.
What do I need to do?
Slow down and remember that teaching some of it well is better in the long run than teaching all of it badly.
Focus on the technique students are learning. Use starters and other short activities to establish basics like looking at scales before starting practical work.
Create video tutorials for using equipment to help introduce ideas in a clear way.
Question students during lessons about the techniques they are using, why it is or isn't effective as if that matters.
Encourage the reflection by students on their practical work by including it as part of lessons and takeaway homework tasks.
In the long term consider blogging as a method of keeping practical diaries.
But first I must get to grips with the new curriculum so that I can see the key places for development, consolidating and extending use of techniques.
I do think that practical work is important, not necessarily to help with learning or understanding of abstract scientific concepts, but because students should not take things as face value. It is through experimenting that scientific discoveries are made or confirmed, and students should experience that as authentically as possible.
Monday, 15 December 2014
GCSE without any practical assessment
I feel like a massive hypocrite. I wasn't unhappy about the introduction of the idea of 12 core practical skills into A-level that would only be assessed as pass/fail. I thought that it would allow more freedom to teachers regarding practical work. Although I qualify that, as I did also say that really it would have been better to go back to the free practical project that we had pre-2008. It was the change to controlled assessment that killed practical in A-level.
If I was a university I would want to see the log book of the student, I would insist that the student 'pass' the practical part to get in. (What about a student who doesn't pass, but gets an A? I would want to know why, poor teaching, illness extreme lack of organisation or laziness or maybe an impairment of the student or teacher absence. I think this situation would be rare). The pass/fail and log book of the practical work could actually help keep teachers honest about the experiences of the students. As I say particularly if universities may ask to see it.
I also reckon that if a student can answer an A-level question working out how to calculate the emf induced across an aeroplane wing or workout whether a circuit with a particular capacitor could crate a vibration quickly enough to produce a sound of a certain pitch, then they can probably read a thermometer, use a stop watch and even a micrometer and oscilloscope.
However, things are different at GCSE. At GCSE it isn't (always) about the child, the headline figures are more important. Assessment drives teaching and floor targets drive teachers to the limit. Why are teachers going to bust a gut sorting the practical investigation skills of GCSE students when it doesn't make any contribution to the final grade? If we were gaming the system before then we sure as hell will be now.
Example tasks from A-level physics "Use a stop watch or light gate for timing", "Correctly construct circuits from circuit diagrams". Firstly, how many schools have enough equipment for everyone to be able to do this independently? If anyone at Ofqual (or anywhere else) thinks that this is suddenly going to make heads who are cutting back on staff and fixing holes in roofs to increase the science department capitation they are living in cloud cuckoo land. So how can even the most honest of teachers realistically say that a student can construct a circuit when it is likely they will work in pairs? What about those two students who have messed around during the lesson and clipped crocodile clips onto each others blazers? What about the under pressure NQT who can't get a class to be quiet to explain what to do? What about the student who is off and misses a practical? What about the students who ask 'what is the point of this'? 'will anyone care if I fail'? (Only the deputy head). What about the student who has to work with the weaker student and therefore does all the work? What about the student who copies the person they are working with? What about the students who point blank refuses?
More over what about the student who takes another piece of work to 'copy up'? What about the lost lab books? What about the teacher who fills folders with blank pieces of paper and claims they have done what they should have (Yes, I have come across this teacher), what about the teacher who is really struggling with workload and struggling to be organised? What happens when a teacher falls ill? What happens to the class that has the list of supply teachers? What happens when the technician fails to supply the right chemicals so the experiment does not work? What happens when the department runs out of money and can't afford to do a particular practical? What happens when teacher illness means there is restricted time for practical? How will the head of department track all the work? Will it be possible to mark this work formatively and allow students a second chance - it doesn't sound that way at A-level.
Are schools really going to take it seriously when in reality no one is checking? Can-do tasks anyone? I know from examiners that students got 24/24 in can-do tasks and 0 for science in the news, how likely is that really?
The current system doesn't create that same level of issues if classes are shared. The controlled assessment is a team effort, it does not need to fall entirely on the shoulders of one member of staff unless it is designed that way (Triple science). To my my mind the new suggestion adds to work load with no added benefit for students. One year GCSE courses mean that all the core science coursework has to be completed at the end of year 10, it is less likely to walk.
I really think that the administrative burden of controlled assessment and lab books needs to be considered.
However, I am not advocating that we keep the controlled assessment. And unlike A-levels I am not even suggesting that we return to the circumstances of the previous specification. That had massive issues too. It all did. Encouraging a wider range of practical activities is a good thing, although I do wonder if there really will be a wider range of practical activities or if resistance of a wire and sodium thiosulphate will once again be the staple of all science investigations.
I would suggest one of two things. Either we scrap the idea of assessing the practical aspect of practical work, or we accept that students can get a high score in it.
To understand the next part you have to realise that the GCSE specification that I follow has statements divided into low, medium and high demand.
I went to a session run by the examiner for the controlled assessment of our GCSE, He talked about areas that he would expect students to score highly in, risk assessment and drawing tables for example. I would agree with him - some areas are easier than others. In exam some questions are easier than others - you only need to read the examiners report to see the questions described by how many students were able to answer them.
Why can't it be the case that students do better in areas of practical work than aspect of the exam. There is a lot more to remember for the exam and you complete the exam in one go. Students can have their controlled assessment broken down skill by skill to ensure they are comfortable with it. I know what is in the controlled assessment, I can teach to the test so to speak. We can do similar practicals before hand and I have certainly developed teaching activities that train my students to automatically hit 5/8 sections within the controlled assessment with ease.
Why can't practical work be low demand work? Why does the spread of marks have to be the same as an exam - it isn't the same thing.
This is especially true now that we have terminal examinations. Students don't need to get a grade or UMS score for each exam/module. Totals can be considered instead. These totals can then be spread over the percentage of each grade ofqual decide they want to give out.
So what does this mean would I do? I would have a number of experiments (15, 18, 21 as it can be divided by 3!) and from that students would submit 9 tables of results or simple observations/conclusions. From them the teacher would judge the level of competence with the equipment given, the score would be 1, 2, or 3 depending on the quality of the results and the experiment.
The UMS marks of this would contribute 10% - why 10%? Because that would be a grade, it could not be ignored, yet it would not make that much difference overall.
I would still include references to experiments in the exam, thereby making it necessary to complete all the experiments. Or at least, to make a persuasive case to management for practical equipment. I actually think that it would be possible to complete an exam on practical work without ever doing the practical work. I think that there is evidence to back this up - schools used to give the back up data to who cohorts in the 2006 specifications and students would still do alright in their controlled assessments.
We need to decide if practical work is important to science in the UK. And we need to do it urgently. If we think that it is then we need to think about the way that our accountability system, how our financing of practical work and how our pedagogical approaches support it.
If I was a university I would want to see the log book of the student, I would insist that the student 'pass' the practical part to get in. (What about a student who doesn't pass, but gets an A? I would want to know why, poor teaching, illness extreme lack of organisation or laziness or maybe an impairment of the student or teacher absence. I think this situation would be rare). The pass/fail and log book of the practical work could actually help keep teachers honest about the experiences of the students. As I say particularly if universities may ask to see it.
I also reckon that if a student can answer an A-level question working out how to calculate the emf induced across an aeroplane wing or workout whether a circuit with a particular capacitor could crate a vibration quickly enough to produce a sound of a certain pitch, then they can probably read a thermometer, use a stop watch and even a micrometer and oscilloscope.
However, things are different at GCSE. At GCSE it isn't (always) about the child, the headline figures are more important. Assessment drives teaching and floor targets drive teachers to the limit. Why are teachers going to bust a gut sorting the practical investigation skills of GCSE students when it doesn't make any contribution to the final grade? If we were gaming the system before then we sure as hell will be now.
Example tasks from A-level physics "Use a stop watch or light gate for timing", "Correctly construct circuits from circuit diagrams". Firstly, how many schools have enough equipment for everyone to be able to do this independently? If anyone at Ofqual (or anywhere else) thinks that this is suddenly going to make heads who are cutting back on staff and fixing holes in roofs to increase the science department capitation they are living in cloud cuckoo land. So how can even the most honest of teachers realistically say that a student can construct a circuit when it is likely they will work in pairs? What about those two students who have messed around during the lesson and clipped crocodile clips onto each others blazers? What about the under pressure NQT who can't get a class to be quiet to explain what to do? What about the student who is off and misses a practical? What about the students who ask 'what is the point of this'? 'will anyone care if I fail'? (Only the deputy head). What about the student who has to work with the weaker student and therefore does all the work? What about the student who copies the person they are working with? What about the students who point blank refuses?
More over what about the student who takes another piece of work to 'copy up'? What about the lost lab books? What about the teacher who fills folders with blank pieces of paper and claims they have done what they should have (Yes, I have come across this teacher), what about the teacher who is really struggling with workload and struggling to be organised? What happens when a teacher falls ill? What happens to the class that has the list of supply teachers? What happens when the technician fails to supply the right chemicals so the experiment does not work? What happens when the department runs out of money and can't afford to do a particular practical? What happens when teacher illness means there is restricted time for practical? How will the head of department track all the work? Will it be possible to mark this work formatively and allow students a second chance - it doesn't sound that way at A-level.
Are schools really going to take it seriously when in reality no one is checking? Can-do tasks anyone? I know from examiners that students got 24/24 in can-do tasks and 0 for science in the news, how likely is that really?
The current system doesn't create that same level of issues if classes are shared. The controlled assessment is a team effort, it does not need to fall entirely on the shoulders of one member of staff unless it is designed that way (Triple science). To my my mind the new suggestion adds to work load with no added benefit for students. One year GCSE courses mean that all the core science coursework has to be completed at the end of year 10, it is less likely to walk.
I really think that the administrative burden of controlled assessment and lab books needs to be considered.
However, I am not advocating that we keep the controlled assessment. And unlike A-levels I am not even suggesting that we return to the circumstances of the previous specification. That had massive issues too. It all did. Encouraging a wider range of practical activities is a good thing, although I do wonder if there really will be a wider range of practical activities or if resistance of a wire and sodium thiosulphate will once again be the staple of all science investigations.
I would suggest one of two things. Either we scrap the idea of assessing the practical aspect of practical work, or we accept that students can get a high score in it.
To understand the next part you have to realise that the GCSE specification that I follow has statements divided into low, medium and high demand.
I went to a session run by the examiner for the controlled assessment of our GCSE, He talked about areas that he would expect students to score highly in, risk assessment and drawing tables for example. I would agree with him - some areas are easier than others. In exam some questions are easier than others - you only need to read the examiners report to see the questions described by how many students were able to answer them.
Why can't it be the case that students do better in areas of practical work than aspect of the exam. There is a lot more to remember for the exam and you complete the exam in one go. Students can have their controlled assessment broken down skill by skill to ensure they are comfortable with it. I know what is in the controlled assessment, I can teach to the test so to speak. We can do similar practicals before hand and I have certainly developed teaching activities that train my students to automatically hit 5/8 sections within the controlled assessment with ease.
Why can't practical work be low demand work? Why does the spread of marks have to be the same as an exam - it isn't the same thing.
This is especially true now that we have terminal examinations. Students don't need to get a grade or UMS score for each exam/module. Totals can be considered instead. These totals can then be spread over the percentage of each grade ofqual decide they want to give out.
So what does this mean would I do? I would have a number of experiments (15, 18, 21 as it can be divided by 3!) and from that students would submit 9 tables of results or simple observations/conclusions. From them the teacher would judge the level of competence with the equipment given, the score would be 1, 2, or 3 depending on the quality of the results and the experiment.
The UMS marks of this would contribute 10% - why 10%? Because that would be a grade, it could not be ignored, yet it would not make that much difference overall.
I would still include references to experiments in the exam, thereby making it necessary to complete all the experiments. Or at least, to make a persuasive case to management for practical equipment. I actually think that it would be possible to complete an exam on practical work without ever doing the practical work. I think that there is evidence to back this up - schools used to give the back up data to who cohorts in the 2006 specifications and students would still do alright in their controlled assessments.
We need to decide if practical work is important to science in the UK. And we need to do it urgently. If we think that it is then we need to think about the way that our accountability system, how our financing of practical work and how our pedagogical approaches support it.
Thursday, 10 April 2014
Why Getting Rid of Practical Assessment Might not be the Disaster Organisations Believe.
I see the RI, Wellcome Trust and the Physiological Society responding to the announcement that there will not be internal practical assessments in A-level qualifications. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2014/WTP056222.htm and http://rigb.org/about/news/spring-2014/ofqual-response and http://www.physoc.org/press-release/2014/ofqual-sounds-death-knell-uk-science-education. They are not happy.
I can see their points of view I really can. But I can't agree with them.
I am an educator absolutely determined to create future scientists and prepare them for this career. I am determined that all my students will understand the nature of science. I want them to understand that science is a practical activity as it is the study of the world around us. Even as a theoretical physicist myself, who spent the end of my degree working at a computer, knows that ultimately we need to take observations of the real world to compare our hypotheses/theories to.
I really wish Wellcome, the RI, the members of SCORE and the other organisations and universities that have concerns spoke up before now. I wish they had stopped controlled assessment. This is what destroyed practical work in secondary schools.
I remember the free investigations that our edexcel candidates used to do at the end of Year 12. Some struggled, but most students really got into it. I remember talking to a more experienced colleague about it as you could tell that these investigations often caught her imagination too. She told me of a student who worked out an equation to relate the number of clubs he could juggle with and the height he'd have to throw them. Real science. I remember helping students to clear up after a leak of the oil she was using after school as she was putting in a lot of extra time to complete the investigation to the standard she wanted. Her friends were helping and the passion and enthusiasm were obvious.
That is gone now. All of this was destroyed by controlled assessment. The exam board set a list of practicals, and everything has to be done in class without communication between candidates. It isn't scientific investigation. It is awful. It isn't science, it's hoop jumping.
I didn't want to do an experimental physics degree. I did practical exams for my A-level physics practical assessment. I was put off by the practicals. I must preferred the chemistry project. I used the labs and took responsibility for the way I worked and when I worked. This is what we should be encouraging in our students.
Controlled assessment destroyed all this. Wellcome, RI, Physiological Society where were you when this was happening?
It is obvious that we are not allowed to go back to free investigative work. The government don't trust teachers. Yet, it is also obvious to teachers that the status quo with respect to controlled assessment is not acceptable either.
I say to organisations such as Wellcome, RI and the Physiological Society put your energy into ensuring we have GCSE and A-level curricula that lend themselves to being learned through access to high quality practical work, and support teachers through spreading the message of good pedagogical approaches to practical work.
I can see their points of view I really can. But I can't agree with them.
I am an educator absolutely determined to create future scientists and prepare them for this career. I am determined that all my students will understand the nature of science. I want them to understand that science is a practical activity as it is the study of the world around us. Even as a theoretical physicist myself, who spent the end of my degree working at a computer, knows that ultimately we need to take observations of the real world to compare our hypotheses/theories to.
I really wish Wellcome, the RI, the members of SCORE and the other organisations and universities that have concerns spoke up before now. I wish they had stopped controlled assessment. This is what destroyed practical work in secondary schools.
I remember the free investigations that our edexcel candidates used to do at the end of Year 12. Some struggled, but most students really got into it. I remember talking to a more experienced colleague about it as you could tell that these investigations often caught her imagination too. She told me of a student who worked out an equation to relate the number of clubs he could juggle with and the height he'd have to throw them. Real science. I remember helping students to clear up after a leak of the oil she was using after school as she was putting in a lot of extra time to complete the investigation to the standard she wanted. Her friends were helping and the passion and enthusiasm were obvious.
That is gone now. All of this was destroyed by controlled assessment. The exam board set a list of practicals, and everything has to be done in class without communication between candidates. It isn't scientific investigation. It is awful. It isn't science, it's hoop jumping.
I didn't want to do an experimental physics degree. I did practical exams for my A-level physics practical assessment. I was put off by the practicals. I must preferred the chemistry project. I used the labs and took responsibility for the way I worked and when I worked. This is what we should be encouraging in our students.
Controlled assessment destroyed all this. Wellcome, RI, Physiological Society where were you when this was happening?
It is obvious that we are not allowed to go back to free investigative work. The government don't trust teachers. Yet, it is also obvious to teachers that the status quo with respect to controlled assessment is not acceptable either.
I say to organisations such as Wellcome, RI and the Physiological Society put your energy into ensuring we have GCSE and A-level curricula that lend themselves to being learned through access to high quality practical work, and support teachers through spreading the message of good pedagogical approaches to practical work.
Friday, 19 July 2013
Using a Stick to Make Changes in Education
When it looked like 100% of the assessment of GCSE science was going to be examination based I was dismayed. "Science is a practical subject and we will lose that if the assessment doesn't reflect this".
In 2005 I went to an event for all the science teachers in Dudley and Wolverhampton LAs. I didn't make notes, but I do remember it was someone from York as the National Science Learning Centre was mentioned a lot. The speaker said that assessment is what drives the taught curriculum and that there were issues in how to assess 'how science works' part of the upcoming GCSE science. (The 2006 GCSE where double science was split to core and additional and 'how science works' was introduced). *at least this is what I remember hearing.
I found this quite powerful, and it did/does reflect my practice. I teach to the test. To this day I teach to the test: why would I not look at the hoop my students have to jump through and aim them as clearly as I can in the right direction?
However, it also made me feel like a tiny cog in the wheel. What I do, how I do it and what my students get out of it, is dictated by the skill of exam writers.
At the end of June I went to the ASE celebration conference in Hatfield. As part of that I attended two sessions host by AQA. We were looking at threats and possible solutions to science education in the next ten years. The audience had to suggest policies to address these threats. The topics picked were linked assessment and STEM. As part of the discussions there were suggestions put forward of how to 'encourage' schools to adopt the policy ideas being proposed: the responses were 'ofqual', 'league tables', 'ofsted' etc. All the things that are used as a stick against schools.
So I go back to my considerations about practical work. Is the call for there to be a practical aspect to the GCSE science assessment because it is a genuine skill that scientists need to be ready for a job, university or college? Or is it simply that we are proud in the UK of our practical science culture and want to maintain it through using the stick of assessment. Do either of these reasons really require that we examine practical work?
I would really like to see a culture where we didn't need the stick to enforce a certain type of practice. If it is good for the students then that should be enough reason to do it.
It all comes back to the professionalism of teachers: do we deserve it? Should we be given the responsibility and see if the 'profession' can rise to it?Would practice actually improve for the better because we would be adding things to both to school life and to lessons that would have an impact that is not possible to measure in exams, but will benefit the adult that child will become and the society it will live in.
But, my thoughts always come back to the probability that teaching to the test is so ingrained in teachers that "Science is a practical subject and we will lose that if the assessment doesn't reflect this".
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
In 2005 I went to an event for all the science teachers in Dudley and Wolverhampton LAs. I didn't make notes, but I do remember it was someone from York as the National Science Learning Centre was mentioned a lot. The speaker said that assessment is what drives the taught curriculum and that there were issues in how to assess 'how science works' part of the upcoming GCSE science. (The 2006 GCSE where double science was split to core and additional and 'how science works' was introduced). *at least this is what I remember hearing.
I found this quite powerful, and it did/does reflect my practice. I teach to the test. To this day I teach to the test: why would I not look at the hoop my students have to jump through and aim them as clearly as I can in the right direction?
However, it also made me feel like a tiny cog in the wheel. What I do, how I do it and what my students get out of it, is dictated by the skill of exam writers.
At the end of June I went to the ASE celebration conference in Hatfield. As part of that I attended two sessions host by AQA. We were looking at threats and possible solutions to science education in the next ten years. The audience had to suggest policies to address these threats. The topics picked were linked assessment and STEM. As part of the discussions there were suggestions put forward of how to 'encourage' schools to adopt the policy ideas being proposed: the responses were 'ofqual', 'league tables', 'ofsted' etc. All the things that are used as a stick against schools.
So I go back to my considerations about practical work. Is the call for there to be a practical aspect to the GCSE science assessment because it is a genuine skill that scientists need to be ready for a job, university or college? Or is it simply that we are proud in the UK of our practical science culture and want to maintain it through using the stick of assessment. Do either of these reasons really require that we examine practical work?
I would really like to see a culture where we didn't need the stick to enforce a certain type of practice. If it is good for the students then that should be enough reason to do it.
It all comes back to the professionalism of teachers: do we deserve it? Should we be given the responsibility and see if the 'profession' can rise to it?Would practice actually improve for the better because we would be adding things to both to school life and to lessons that would have an impact that is not possible to measure in exams, but will benefit the adult that child will become and the society it will live in.
But, my thoughts always come back to the probability that teaching to the test is so ingrained in teachers that "Science is a practical subject and we will lose that if the assessment doesn't reflect this".
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, 27 May 2013
Practical Work in Secondary Science - A minds-on approach
During a recent visit to Foyles Book Store in London I bought a book called "Practical Work in Secondary Science - A minds-on approach" by Ian Abrahams.
I haven't read the book fully yet, but I am finding it interesting and challenging my view of practical work.
In chapter one, Ian Abrahams states five reasons why we do practical work:
What is interesting is that Abrahams states that studies have found practical work to be at least as effective as other methods of instruction.
However, a lot of these studies are old. Have our methods of teaching moved on?
The question to consider: What does practical work accomplish that could not be accomplished as well by a less expensive and less time consuming alternative?
The book is hard reading, but I don't think that I will be rushing to give up my practical work any time soon, instead I need to reflect on how I use it to best effect. I have read chapter one, so hopefully chapters 2-6 will support my reflections to become a more effective practitioner when it comes to practical work.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I haven't read the book fully yet, but I am finding it interesting and challenging my view of practical work.
In chapter one, Ian Abrahams states five reasons why we do practical work:
- To enhance the learning of scientific knowledge
- To teach laboratory skills
- To develop certain 'scientific attiudes' such as open-minded ness, objectivity and willingness to suspend judgement
- To give insight into scientific method, and develop expertise in using it.
- To motivate pupils, by stimulating interest and enjoyment
What is interesting is that Abrahams states that studies have found practical work to be at least as effective as other methods of instruction.
However, a lot of these studies are old. Have our methods of teaching moved on?
The question to consider: What does practical work accomplish that could not be accomplished as well by a less expensive and less time consuming alternative?
The book is hard reading, but I don't think that I will be rushing to give up my practical work any time soon, instead I need to reflect on how I use it to best effect. I have read chapter one, so hopefully chapters 2-6 will support my reflections to become a more effective practitioner when it comes to practical work.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Rudgleigh Ave,,United Kingdom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)