Writing New Schemes of Work

The new national curriculum gives us the opportunity to review our schemes of work. I have been reviewing what we deliver and the considering the purpose of our curriculum over the past few months, but now I need to act ready for September.

I have asked myself a few questions that I need to consider and allow for in the writing of schemes of work. The appear below in no particular order.

1. What resources, techniques and lesson styles will support students with low level literacy or slow processing skills?
2. What resources do we need to incorporate into lessons to help EAL students develop their level of English and understand the science being covered while their specialist vocabulary is low.
3. At key stage 3 are we using the interests of the students to engage them and help understand the relevance of what is being taught?
4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of our students and how do our schemes of work use that?
5. How are the skills needed at GCSE being developed at Key Stage 3?
6. How does the curriculum prepare the students for the science they will need in their everyday lives?
7. Does what we do at GCSE prepare students for A-level? Does it encourage students to continue with science to A-level?
8. What methods can we use to differentiate work and what will this look like in a scheme of work?
9. What contexts will engage students (especially girls)?
10. How are G&T students identified and then stretched and challenged?
11. How do the schemes of work support intervention methods?
12. How are lessons and series of lessons structured to allow marking to support progression?
13. What does a good science lesson "look" like?
14. How will scheme of work help to promote independent learning?

In terms of things that I feel I would like to include in the scheme of work:

1. lesson activities
1. questions
2. resources
3. presentations
4. worksheets
5. support resources
6. practical requisitions and risk assessments
7. descriptions of activities
2. learning objectives
1. differentiated
2. including skills
3. knowledge
4. linked to prior and future learning
3. learning outside the classroom
1. field work
2. homework/prep
3. competitions
4. trips
5. ICT resources to support optional extra curricular work
6. revision resources
4. overview of the scheme and the progression of ideas throughout it

Other things to consider:

1. time scale of rewrite
2. review of the schemes
3. how to store, share and organise resources
4. where should assessment fit into the scheme?
5. what life skills should we be delivering?

Lastly, is it possible to collaborate with other heads of science in the GSA or Allied Schools?

Exit ticket AfL

My year 10 and 11 students have files instead of books. I don't really like it, but it is what they expect to have and I don't want to argue over it. (Year 11 kicked up such a fuss when another teacher suggested going back to books, and I was always told "pick your battles").

There are advantages to having files (hole punches don't run out in the same way that glue sticks do). However, this means I don't really get to "mark their books". I mark their homework/prep, but don't take in what they do in class. There are pluses and minuses to this. I have to plan for time to look at their work in class as they do it, and I incorporate more self-assessment into the lesson as there is no other way to feedback on the work they have done, which does mean they get more immediate feedback. It also means that I have less marking.

However, I am not satisfied. I feel that I don't give enough longer answer questions of feedback because I need to have simple work. It doesn't help my student prepare for the 6 mark questions or develop literacy in general.

So I am going to plan to include an opportunity for the students to write freely and hand it in at the end of the lesson as their "exit ticket". I have used the specification to try and write questions that can be differentiated by outcome.

The first attempts can be found under my username on TES resources: http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/Exit-Ticket-Worksheet-C2-OCR-Gateway-2011-12-spec-6319894/

It will be interesting to see what the students think, and how they respond. I have deliberately made quite a few initially so that it is easier for me to persist with this.

what makes a good science teacher?

ASE conference session: Online models of CPD

I was invited to this session by Emily Perry at the Science Learning Centres, along with other teachers who had taken part in a trial of online CPD. Three of us were at the conference and able to attend.

I have written about it in blog posts previously, here http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/using-online-conferencing-software-to.html and here http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/using-simulations-in-classroom.html.

The first section of the session was about Experiences and expectations of CPD
There are lots of ways that teachers can experience CPD. The question was posed: Does online CPD get put into its own category? Should it?

Online CPD can take all sorts of forms. If you are reading this, then it is online cpd. Twitter is often claimed to be CPD. It is possible to for articles and pedagogy ideas online as well as using YouTube and TED. However we were interested in online conferencing and discussions; face to face, but not in the same room.

We were asked the following question: What describes the best CPD? (Any type)
The words we came up with as a group were: Relevant, reflective, new, Stretching, useful, problem solving, socialising , strategies.

Socialising was interesting, I shall return to that point.

I thought that an excellent quote about the merits of CPD in general was: "If it doesn't solve a problem then I don't want to be involved in CPD". It is a great message to any manager or teacher about the usefulness of taking part in cpd.

Before going on to explain the projects carried out by the science learning centre we were asked to consider the rhetorical question: Does "face to face" mean different things now - what does it mean?

The Two Examples of Online CPD

This section of the session was started with an overview about why the SLCs were interested in online methods of delivering CPD.

They find it is:
-difficult to get teachers out of school,
-difficult to get the SMT to prioritise subject specific CPD,
-and really difficult to get teachers out for subject knowledge/contemporary science.

With this in mind investigating online models seems a very sensible idea.
The SLC found a good thing about video conferencing they used is that it is managed by JANET, the academic network, and very stable, good quality audio and video. But that skills are needed to manage the online dialogue.
Initially the two trial projects were:

Science without walls:
Involving 6 scientists in 6 different sessions communicating with science teachers in hour long sessions which involved discussions and questions - dialogue.

The sessions had to be carefully managed because "socialisation" is important part of online CPD as it is harder than face to face.

It was a really interesting sounding project, brining scientists to schools and teachers without either having to move great distances.

And Teaching Challenging Topics
This project was the one I was involved in and had both synchronous (video chat/meetings) and asynchronous (web forum) activities.

The online "face to face" sessions were done using the adobe connect software.

Again using the video conference software presented challenges when managing meetings as there are less body language cues from participants when all you can see are their head and shoulders.

As mentioned the project also use the hub between meetings to upload resources and have forum discussions.

Outcomes from the teaching challenging concepts programme:
-Content that was found and developed by the SLC to support the teachers teaching that particular challenging concept.
-Getting to know other teachers and teachers in other contexts
-Using the online tool became part of the CPD


Next steps in developing online CPD
Socialising is important in CPD
Reviewing CPD sessions periodically.

I really enjoyed revisiting this project and it brought back a lot of the good points. Working with people online made me a much more proactive and reflective practitioner, and I liked to think that I was those things already. It has slipped though so the session was very useful in reminding me how it felt to deeply consider what I was teaching and the impact.

The theme throughout the session was about socialising being an important part of CPD. I hadn't considered that before. However, the social side of the ASE conference itself was very beneficial to me. I think I got more out of it because there was more of a social side for me, it made me comfortable and confident.

Both in interacting both with people I do know and people I don't, by swapping ideas in the context of our schools, allows us to reflect on what will and won't work.

Before taking part in the "teaching challenging topics" online CPD I had never considered in this level of detail what it takes for CPD to be worthwhile. There are a lot of levels to it.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Online models of CPD

ASE conference session: Literacy in Science

I really enjoyed this talk by Chris Haines of Essex LA. I don't think that any of the things he said were a surprise to me, at least they shouldn't have been, but they did make me think.



Firstly Chris showed us a list of criteria from other GCSE subjects (including Maths). All of them required quality if written community (QWC) to be measured. This shouldn't have been a surprise to me, as it would be obvious that writing would be important in an essay subject such as history.

Literacy is important to every subject as ultimately the students are going to be assessed through their writing.

Then he gave us a list and asked us to put them into "English", "literacy in Science" or "both" in the form of a Venn diagram.


To be honest all of the things should have been in the "both" section. Just because we don't explicitly teach verb tenses in science doesn't mean that we shouldn't ensure that the students in our classes are using them correctly or challenge them if they get it wrong.

I often find tenses a challenge when writing an investigation. The plan should be in the future tense, but the evaluation in the past tense. Encouraging children to write in the third person is also difficult, but I do try and do it in lessons.

The idea of addressing literacy in science lessons isn't new, but after a push in the early 2000s it is becoming increasingly more important in schools. (Maybe to do with ofsted and QWC in exams, but I don't think that any reason to improve and expand the teaching of our own language can be bad).




Some of the points I wrote down from Chris were:

All teachers must teach literacy - this is included in new teaching standards. Are we teachers of English or science? (Both) Including literacy in out teaching is also part of the ofsted criteria (and numeracy). As literacy is a common thread across curriculum - QWC Required in most subjects - we are supporting each other by teaching it. It is also important to note that there is an increasing demand of literacy with increasing grades.

Finally he asked: Is there a difference in demands between key 3 and 4? This is something that I am not sure about, although I am sure the answer would be yes!

Chris pointed out some major questions that need to be asked in a science department in order to assess how well literacy is being taught.

Will teachers need support?
How will you transfer skills between subjects?
Do your students show the same level in their writing in science as they would be expected to do in English?

He said when writing an action plan:

Find out what you need to do,
Find out where you are,
Find out what you need to do to get there.

Words I am finding useful, not just in addressing literacy but a lot of the developments in the science department.









The question to ask myself is "Where do you find the support?" I have already approached my teaching and learning assistant head teacher who also happens to lead English about this and she is keen to support me.


Chris went on to say that quality written communication is not the same as getting the spelling, punctuation and grammar correct. But about structure, coherence and use of key words too.

He said we should think about how key words are introduced, e.g look at how MFL introduce new vocabulary. He suggested a book called "mucking about with sentences" and using the old strategy resources.

He also suggested departments provide students with rich tapestry for reading. I have mentioned Alex Weatherall's Science Library in a previous blog post and I think that Chris's comments mean that it is something all science departments should take notice of. http://scienceteachinglibrary.wordpress.com/




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Moving from aims to implementation

In a previous blog post here:http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/what-is-science-education-for.html I talked about the aims of science education.

I settled on three sentences from the ASE Guide to Secondary Science Education and they are:

1. A grasp of the "big" ideas that enable active participation in decisions involving science and technology 
2. A basic understanding of what science is, how it works and what are its strengths and limitations 
3. The ability to continue learning

My new Head Teacher had asked: "What is it that we are delivering? And what do we need to change/move forward? What it is that we could do better if we could" on her first meeting with the staff.

I think that I would like to remove "big" from the first sentence. It is vague, and while I want to keep the aims unspecific and therefore able to move with the times, I also don't want to highlight it.

Do the science GCSE courses we offer seek to achieve all these aims? Certainly the policitcal edge to the topics we teach in year 10, crude oil, plastics, diet, endangered species, generating electricity, using chemicals from the Earth and such like would indicate that we have a course, at GCSE at least, that meets aim 1.

The OCR gateway core science course is described in the specification as emphasizing explanation, theories and modelling in science along with the implications of science in society. So in fact we have bought into an intended curriculum that should meet aim 1 and to some extent aim 2. Meeting aim 2 fully and aim 3 at all will depend on how we deliver the curriculum as well as other factors.

At post-16 it is less clear that what we do and teach that reaches any of the aims above. In physics we only cover a few of the developments of ideas, such as the photoelectric effect and event then we might not mention the issues around it. I used to teach the context-led approach, in which the accompanying textbook had applications of the physics and discussion around the development of ideas. But mention of these were left to the students' reading or passing comments. Perhaps, that is enough?

Which leaves what we do at key stage 3. This is both the most practical key stage at which to make changes to achieve the aims above, but also the most difficult. As an independent school I don't need to consider the upcoming changes by Michael Gove to the the key stage 3 curriculum, but I do need to prepare my students so they are ready for their GCSEs.

(A colleague in a previous school once said the students don't learn anything at key stage 3, so it didn't matter what we did - I would say that is a massive concern and should have been addressed!)

Even though key stage 3 is the most practical and a good time to develop the learning skills we want to see in our students, it is a long time between the end of year 9 and the end of year 13 when the students go off into the "real world". Adapting what we do at key stage 3 is important, but it isn't enough.

Of course I have missed an important part of the curriculum: the extra curriculum. It is in this time that it is possible to develop a lot of the inter and intra personal skills students need for life. I will always remember fondly doing the STEM challenges with a group of students who came together from across the school and produced a fabulous presentation. Time for these things are always squeezed, but it would be great to spend the next few years developing an extra curricular programme that will enhance the development of the students to the three aims above.

NB: extra curriculum doesn't need to mean a "manned" club, it can be recommending books or events for the students to join in during their spare time. Alex Weatherall and Sarah Pannell's Science Teaching TV Guide is a great example, it is hosted along side Alex's Science Teaching Library recommendations. http://scienceteachinglibrary.wordpress.com/

ASE conference session: Leading Science into the Future

The last session I went to at the ASE conference was run by the 11-19 committee and aimed at heads of department about the challenges facing faculties.

Alastair outlined areas of development facing science departments:

Performance management
New system,
local practice,
difficult conversations,
paperwork,
union action (work to rule)

Quality assurance, self evaluation
Identity the areas of strength/weakness - so what?

Accountability
Who is accountable?

New specification
Why? Evidence, which one? Timescale, resources, sow.

Changes to linear qualifications
Timetable, rota, order of teaching units, revision, mocks,

CPD
In house or external?
Collaboration?


As I work in an independent school I choose to look at changing to linear. I was glad I did because lots of issues I had not considered came up. I feel slightly glad we are doing OCR Gateway as there are less exams, but there is a lot more to it than the number of exams.




My main concern is getting accurate data and using it to inform intervention and report to parents. After than we have the issue of developing exam revision skills, but I think that will have to developed whole school as all subjects will have the same issues.

Thought provoking session!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Reading, UK