Following Tute 5

Well, last Thursday's tute started off a little disorganised for me, as I found I was supposed to have signed up for rotating tutorials (d'oh!). Mandi mentioned in her blog it was in the unit guide, but I must have domestic blindness & I hadn't checked into blackboard since the weekend (which didn't mention it). Anyway, apart from 2 minutes of confusion, I really thought the structure was brilliant (again!) & very targeted, given the imminent practicum. In three hours, I went to three different tutes and as a general comment, this really reminded me why I like science. It was hands-on, and just a bit (lot) fun! My only problem is that there were more than three sessions that I would've liked to attend! Oh well...

Middle School Science

Key practical points of note:

• Prac is all about keeping control - otherwise, anarchy!
• Have a word (stop) that makes everyone listen - vital for safety reasons
  
• Always keep the maximum number of students in view at any point in time - when helping a smaller group, be mindful of how to do this (teach side-on)
• Know where the room's main gas tap and electricity switches are
  
• Year 7 students get a bunsen burner licence (lol!). Key features include:
  
  1. Hole closed for yellow flame
  2. Light bunsen burner on yellow
  3. Match, then tap
  4. Only 3 matches in box (or they'll light them all!!)
     
  5. Teacher talk = yellow flame
  6. When away from desk, students must turn off bunsen burner
  7. Blue flame (hole open = more oxygen) for working
  8. Don't put the bottom of the test tube straight into the hottest part of the blue flame or it'll explode.
  9. Always have the test tube facing AWAY from faces
  10. Always have safety gear on (goggles, some schools have lab coats)
  11. Turning off - yellow flame, off at the tap.
• Made a simple circuit. Connected up an ammeter (in series -never parallel or it'll blow up the meter) and voltmeter (parallel across the globe). Always check students' set-ups prior to letting them switch on! I fell for the silly trick of picking out an ammeter, not a milli-ammeter (duh!). It's been a really long time since I played with that stuff.... this would be why Keasty stressed that we should ALWAYS do our experiments before walking in to teach them. At least I actually remembered what I was supposed to do with the circuit though. Rusty, but still mostly there. Perhaps I need to draw a few concept maps to help! Anyway, we drew the V-I graph of our measurements. R is the gradient - as V=IR, R=V/I, which is rise/run, which tells you which way around to draw the graph. This was a nice explanation that links back to simple maths, which I liked. Interestingly I get quite tense still when someone is looking over my shoulder & make dumb mistakes like saying micro instead of milli, and incorrect decimal placement, where I otherwise probably wouldn't Keasty rightfully should think I'm a real doofus, but more importantly I'll have to remember this for my own students & have patience with them.
  

As always, Keasty drew quite a few laughs in the way he explained things. I hope I can manage that!! He also made a point of checking everyone's work - it's hard to observe his pedagogy and 'do' at the same time, but he did explain much of what he thought we should know. I really felt I benefited from the 'doing' though and this was deliberately a prac. to show us how to run them and discuss what not to do.

VCE Chemistry

OK - I'm just not going to re-write my notes of this session here, as they're too huge! Instead, just a reflection (I usually try to do a bit of both).

This was really what I needed - although to be honest I could've listened to Deb talking about VCE chem for much longer than 1 hour! With my supervisor in the upcoming placement being only a VCE chem teacher, the likelihood is that I won't get many (if any) general science classes, and will be teaching 2 chem lessons per day. So, this was well-timed.

As a general comment on the structure, VCE chemistry looks really great, although I personally find it strange that you can do units 3 & 4, without having 1 & 2 under your belt. Not that many people would...just that it's possible. I wonder why? I also like each unit being assessed upon it's completion, rather than saving 2 units up for end of year exams. This is much kinder to the students! It makes much more sense to cover the periodic table at the beginning of the course - looking back to my 1986 text, it was in the last chapter of the book from year 12...makes no sense in hindsight! I'm looking forward to delving into how that will be taught though, because there are useful trends to note in the periodic table that possibly won't have been taught in 1st semester Y11 - something to read up on.

Great that chem has moved with the times by including such things as nanotechnology. I've read a few articles about it along the way, but will have to read the new text to see what's taught.

Deb did highlight that we should download and read the study design, including the rationale. Also the VCE chem assessment handbook (VCAA) is useful & includes rubrics. She mentioned some very good software is out there for structural isomers and covalent bonding lessons....need to look them up!

I thought the practical outline of the structure of VCE Chemistry was useful, but I wonder, will all this be repeated in second semester, as not all the chem pre-service teachers were obliged to turn up to that session & it was pretty important info. Anyway, it was very useful & timely for me!

Lab Equipment

Well, this was just plain fun (and useful). Pulling a Van Der Graaff generator apart and describing how it worked was useful & hopefully I'll be better equipped to fix one if I find it hiding under a desk somewhere! The explanation of how it works was great, and the ideas about activities that can be done with it will be good in class...

• Pie hats - pie plates loosely stacked buiding up negative charge and repelling each other, so the top one blows off, then the next, then the next etc.
• A group holding hands - person at one end earths themselves, person at the other end touches the generator and the electrical charge is felt by all of them.

POE was demonstrated - what do you think will happen? Apparently we should have ideally written down our predictions, but I was still committed to my own ideas anyway. I liked having a group discussion about the predictions, but perhaps people could write their ideas down, then discuss as a group, then refine the predictions if we want to. Would this work better than just a group prediction, or just an individual prediction? I wonder.... Anyway, it was interesting.

The ticker tape and strobe were reminders of useful equipment. I really liked some of the ideas that a strobe could be used for - guitar strings, ticker tape machine, (the centrifuge didn't work so well) - anything with regular movement. I can see this working in a maths classroom too. It was an interesting discussion about the use of the CAS calculator vs. the ticker tape machine - the idea of some groups using one and others using the other was good, but it would be good to get all kids using all machines at some point in their tuition, for the purpose of experience. I got the distinct feeling that the ideas floated last year about students learning some maths via discovery with the calculator doesn't work so well for studies of motion (even though the calculator is capable of measuring & plotting graphs of motion). The ticker tape was considered to be more intuitive - it wasn't just an issue of cost/equipment availability. Interesting. I wonder who would agree/disagree with that thought.

This was another very useful and practical session.

Off to practicum next....will be keeping the journal in terms of reflections on each lesson, attached to each lesson plan, so I won't be posting them up here.

Until sesssion 6!

M

Following Tute 4

Well, here is the somewhat belated blog entry, awaiting on my actually making the oobleck with my girls that Keasty set as homework. Disgusting stuff to feel, btw! Interesting how it really feels like a viscous liquid, but when you squeeze it, it seems to be a solid. My understanding is that it's really a liquid - cornstarch is a long chain polymer, and the molecules all get tangled up with each other under pressure (not really bonding), causing the solid-like properties. If I'm wrong (which I may well be!) someone let me know!! Interesting, & my girls had a bit of fun too :-)

Keasty had set another question for his students to follow up during week 3 - what happens if you put a beaker with water on scales, then stick your finger in it? Well, having tried it, it got heavier, which I'm thinking is due to the increased pressure on the water molecules by the finger transferring in part to the scales (and in part, by displacing the water) - you can feel some pressure (it's not like sticking your finger in air!), and every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The other homework he'd set was handed back & discussed - we from Mandi's didn't really have a handle on what had been set, but got the gist of parts of it via the discussion (the group had to make pancakes, then fill in a worksheet. One e.g. was when drawing particles, students should show them in motion, not stationary).

So I learned about a couple of common misconceptions in those two activities. There was a handout for the common misconceptions of 'bit ideas' to help with assignment 2a. Where Keasty had tricked me on the water in a beaker, very little was in question in my mind with the handout which is a bit of a relief, but makes me wonder how differently I might perform on a multi-choice vs. an extended response test (hope not!). I have come to the conclusion that it is easy enough to get by quite well as a learner in science by mostly understanding an issue, but actually teaching that issue requires a far more comprehensive understanding to do it justice properly. It will require research into the best ways to teach each and every topic prior to entering the classroom, and I imagine it will take years to develop that PCK (if I ever succeed to my satisfaction). This isn't really isolated to science, but it is so diverse that I think it might be a bigger task than most subjects!

It was great to be in another lecturer's tute as something different - got to see a different approach to teaching & the greater the variety in this regard, the more ideas I get. Keasty is a very entertaining teacher, which is immediately engaging. I imagine if the content got a bit dry, Keasty's humour would overcome those moments, and I wonder whether I can ever manage to do this. I suppose I'll find my own style, but it would be good to keep the kids smiling in time to come. I liked the way he got regular feedback and was very inclusive via the 'picking on' everyone tactic. It's a little confronting, but I suspect it breaks down barriers and creates a 'safe' environment within a group in a short space of time. Another tip he shared was to deliberately withhold answers to questions posed in group discussions - even if the first student response is correct ("tell me more"). This helps everyone to get thinking. More craft knowledge to assimilate....

However, the key focus of the tute was on lesson planning. I loved the way we each got up and added to the white board one piece of information about cells. I recalled a few things, but as a group we knew a whole lot about them! This is a really great (and again inclusive) tactic that I will certainly bring into my classrooms. Although, it really only worked because we *did* know quite a bit as a group - it wouldn't be of much use unless you could expect the class to have a reasonable depth of knowledge in the topic.

I also liked the pair and group work structure. Three pairs all working towards one final set of lessons. It allowed sensible conversation (when there's more than two or three in a conversation, it always seems inefficient) but still was involving working in a team of 7. This is the most effective group work structure I've seen yet. Anyway, as to lesson planning, it was really good, and for me the biggest highlight was the excellent ideas that you can get when working in a group vs. on your own. I really think our lesson was significantly better working in groups, than it would've been if any of us had worked individually. This isn't something we're likely to have the benefit of once we're teachers :( The lesson plan structure seemed pretty good, but there will be bits that I might add for myself, when I'm on practicum. For e.g. enabling prompts, extension activities. Assessment - will I only have this in the 'what will I be doing' category? It might be useful to specifically target informal assessment ideas in a separate section. What about my own learning outcomes? I also found last year that a section on anticipated difficulties with associated mitigants helped me focus on individual problems within previous sessions, and how to manage or resolve them. A blend of last year's maths and this year's science plans might work out best for me.

So that's about it for tute 4!

Until next time....

Sites to remember

I don't actually want to lose these references, as they have interesting info in them, so thought I'd load them up and perhaps others might look at them too...

• Children's misconceptions about science: http://www.amasci.com/miscon/opphys.html
• Teaching for conceptual change: http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/workshops/teachingforconcept.html

Journal Entry 2 (Week 3)

Firstly....

I got a placement at Fintona Girls' in Balwyn...woo-hoo! It's a terrific school by reputation, so I'm very lucky to be going there. Just waiting for the OTP to call back, but I'm SO STOKED! It's not too far from home, and I really feel I will be getting a view of current best practice in schools, as local goss puts them as one of the better schools in the area and their Year 12 results are consistently excellent. Hehehehe - how exciting :-).

OK, now to the reflection!

I really enjoyed yesterday's tute and lecture. Felt like I learned quite a bit. I love being able to put terms around the different ways students can work together - it helps me to remember them and you can have a conversation with other people about it without bumbling around what you're trying to say. Think Pair Share (this one was about "What Have I Learned About Science, Learning, Teaching, Myself and Year 8's") was terrific & I will certainly use that in my own classes. I think it's very important in many settings that people are given the opportunity to think first, before acting. It shares this same strength with POE - you have time to think, and thus engage right from the outset. The pair then share parts also have strengths - it was less confronting to discuss my ideas with just one person & at the same time have feedback and different ideas. Then there was also partner support during share time. You get to hear the whole classes thoughts, which I jotted down as much as I could, because they were all valuable. So, the key strengths of this method as I saw it from a learner's perspective, is that it is a structure which allows time to think first (which my slow old brain needs!), time therefore to engage, and it provides a supportive base from which to gain other people's viewpoints and share your own. I wonder if some of this also comes down to control of learning...if someone is being step by step directed in what to think, they may feel they have no input over & above the teacher and therefore don't engage. When the student is officially supposed to think, it may make them feel valued & in control of their own learning. Probably just me making stuff up at this point, but who knows!

So, I decided that I would put down my thoughts, then compare them to things I can find to read, to see what discrepancies from my experience to the learned opinion on each point, as it comes up. Here's a link to one site that discusses think-pair-share http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/DE/PD/instr/strats/think/

The key points from this article were...

• Providing "think time" increases quality of student responses.
• Students become actively involved in thinking about the concepts presented in the lesson.
• Research tells us that we need time to mentally "chew over" new ideas in order to store them in memory. When teachers present too much information all at once, much of that information is lost. If we give students time to "think-pair-share" throughout the lesson, more of the critical information is retained.
• When students talk over new ideas, they are forced to make sense of those new ideas in terms of their prior knowledge. Their misunderstandings about the topic are often revealed (and resolved) during this discussion stage.
• Students are more willing to participate since they don't feel the peer pressure involved in responding in front of the whole class.
• Think-Pair-Share is easy to use on the spur of the moment.
• Easy to use in large classes.

One great application mentioned in the article was the use of it for "predict" in the POE science experiment structure. Everything they said made sense & connected with what I experienced, although I don't think a picked up on how much better you retain knowledge with this structure - I guess it makes sense though.

OK - now to the lecture. This was JUST what I needed when it comes to curriculum! Making sense of what I learned in science 20 years ago, c.f. what is in the science curriculum now is sometimes challenging, so to see what pressures have driven curriculum change over the years was very interesting. It's easy (but voluminous!) to find what the current curriculum is, but much more difficult to determine the history that Deborah gave us yesterday. It seems like such a political bung-fight driving the changes though....

I am also very very happy that I have finally resolved something that has bugged me all throughout 2007, up until yesterday. Why has there been a steady decrease in Maths and Science performance at school, and enrollments to these subjects at Uni, when we have a supposedly improved curriculum and methods of teaching them (i.e. more context based). The really blindingly obvious answer that until now has eluded me - because it is more socially acceptable to be smart and in a field other than maths and science! These two respective industries have lost standing within society compared with other (and even new) industries. How obvious! How stupid of me!!! It was like being on the road around Canberra! You can see where you want to be, but you're stuck on a circular loop and can't get off it (this joke won't make any sense to anyone who hasn't been to Canberra by car lol!).

Deborah had some questions in the lecture for us to mull over...

1. Does curriculum reflect society, or does it initiate change in society? This is a trick question? Sometimes it clearly attempts to reflect/respond to societal changes - Deb's point of science curriculum responding to the great space race is an example of this. Another example is the use of CAS calculators in maths, reflecting the highly technological society in which we live, and the greater need for people to be able to interpret output, rather than understand the technicalities of how that output was arrived at. The flip-side of this, is that I suspect that by initiating changes to curriculum, students come out of school with a different bank of knowledge and experience than their parents did, upon which they forge their path in the world - thus it must also change society. It is a positive feedback situation, really. Curriculum must be both....and it is surely in quite a delicate balance.
   
   
2. Which pressure groups have the greatest influence on the curriculum? Hmmm - let me be cynical here and say "the ones with the most power". Usually, power = money. So, students are typically broke and don't have a voice until they're 18...I'm guessing it's not them (told you I was cynical). It's irrelevant that they're the biggest stakeholder.
   
   Politicians pay the salaries at the Department of Education, so ultimately they are a huge stakeholder. Getting voted in is of the utmost priority for them, so this is probably where the average mum and dad, and teacher gets some say - via disapproval of current political agendas for education. Having said that, politicians want to minimise costs at every opportunity, so people have to scream pretty loudly to get them to turn their hearing aids on. Teacher strikes x 2 for my girls this year is a point in case. If a new innovation with curriculum is brought in, they can sell it as an educational improvement, and hopefully win some votes.
   
   Another major power group is industry - although I must say that I don't think they've been all that successful in terms of curriculum agendas, b/c I have read that some larger corporates have now resorted to running basic letter writing and literacy classes for employees, to cover the gap in standards that students leave school with. You wouldn't want ppl who rite like txt 2 m8k letters 4 u! Most trades like their new apprentices to have completed year 12 - enter VCAL, VET etc. But really, these just replace the old tech schools, so I wonder if it has changed all that much over time (except that students stick it out longer at school, but that was a politically driven exercise too - it reduced unemployment for a short time).
   
   Universities & other further education institutions should be another group of stakeholders, but I have a suspicion their influence is reducing, not increasing. Uni's don't rely on as many prerequisite subjects any more, which means students tend to repeat subjects in 1st year, or perhaps do different subjects in year 12. Due to the weighting up of some science/maths subject marks in terms of ENTER scores, this latter choice is less of an option than you might think. So students are getting to repeat year 12 content in 1st year Uni. Why do the Uni's not have as many prerequisite subjects? Is this driven by them being dissatisfied with the curriculum taught in VCE, to the point they ignore it? Hmm... if that is the case, perhaps they don't have very much influence on curriculum at all.
   
   All this suggests it's mostly politically driven, which is very sad, as politicians are primarily focussed on changing things around so they will be re-elected. This means that education (including curriculum) will become a priority on a cyclical basis, as the focus will only be there when it is in a state of disrepair or inadequacy.
   
   Of course, there is one other voice - the media. I wonder how it's influence is felt, as they don't directly input to curriculum, but if The Age and Four Corners (or maybe Today Tonight lol!) made enough of a fuss about curriculum being inadequate, it might just make it onto the agenda at the next curriculum meeting.
   
   Can someone with a yellow hat please enter this blog?
   
   Deb mentioned a couple of other influences on curriculum. Politics and economics - actually, I think I covered both of these above, but I personally think they are inescapably linked. Cultural transmission was another interesting influence - I wonder how much Aboriginal, African or, say, Asian science will be found in VELS. That's an exercise for me to look at...
   
   
3. What evidence do I see that a theory of learning is evident in a curriculum. Well, one that springs to mind is Piaget. When we looked at VELS from level 4 through to level 6, it progressed clearly from concrete operational to formal operational (which fits with the age groups involved). For example, in space and earth science, level 4 talked about MODELS being used to explain structures, eg. the arrangement of planets in the solar system. This is concrete operational. It moves on in levels 5 to formal operational, but still with some reference back to concrete operational - "they use physical and theoretical models to investigate geological processes" (for eg.). In level 6, it is assumed all students are in the formal operational stage, and the focus is much greater on concepts and reasoning. Made good sense to me :-)
   
   
4. Why study science? Why study chemistry? Great question that surely we all should at least be able to answer for ourselves! I studied science because I loved it. Why? I think my upbringing had a huge role in this - Dad happily still recounts days of making wierd and wonderful chemical cocktails to do different things when he was a kid (like making gum nut bombs with cheese plugs at the top, to blow up the local rat plague where he lived in Carlton). Lots of funny and entertaining stories that sparked a real interest in me with the potential for chemistry. I grew crystal gardens and wanted to cut stuff up to see what was inside them, wanted to understand how methane generators worked and wired up control boxes to pottery kilns - all that geeky stuff that most kids don't want to do. But actually, it was pretty cool - methane generators are really quite interesting! What kid doesn't think poo is funny - what potential!! I really hope I can find both entertainment and relevance for science and chemistry for my students, but I think the trick is that it is very personal. Science is such a broad subject, that my reasons for loving it are unlikely to be the same as any of my students, so I have to find a way to tap into their interests and be versatile enough in my knowledge to find something of relevance to them. Why study science? Because it's interesting and relevant. But the interest and relevance is different for everyone.

Well, that was the end of Deb's questions. Other points of note in the lecture really realted to scientific literacy. I like to think there's a happy balance, that doesn't compromise theoretical science, but applies that in the real world. This has got to be the easiest subject in schools to find relevant context for all the theory - I think the challenging part is to present it to students so they remain interested, and not bogged down in too much rote learning or theory. Perhaps involving them in choosing context (via surveys of interests) and also exposing the students to science they may not have noticed around them. I'm looking forward to trying :-)

Back to tutes - investigating VELS. Looking at the way a single topic within science progresses through the levels and interconnected with other topics is a really good way of getting a handle on how the curriculum designers were thinking. I actually liked doing this activity (there HAS to be something wrong with me), but I'm also relieved to find the progression points that I have come to know and love in maths to be there for science as well (http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/assessment/ppoint/science/index.html). It is a bit more prescriptive, and I hear what Deb was saying (re: CSF) about too much information making you spend your time focusing on ticking off topics covered, but I see it as being quite a good guide to before starting a topic, and a framework from which to build interesting lessons. I don't believe the connections are lost, as long as you retain a total view as well as the micro view, which I hope I can do.

In group work, I have to assume that the teacher rarely intervenes, unless there's a problem. The role becomes one of oversight. Mandi mentioned in her blog that she did this deliberately. Also, regarding not everyone listening at share time - I don't actually see this as a major problem, because really we all have to go through VELS in detail. I think the key points to take from other people's work is that the structure is similar for all the disciplines, there are lots of interconnections between the topics and disciplines, and that you will see patterns for the topics flow through from one level to the next. We have to go through the detail ourselves though - a high level overview by peers will not cover anything more than superficial knowledge, and identify similarities and differences to the work we had each done. Unfortunately, the group I was working in was one of the key offenders in the not listening camp - sorry Mandy...

Mandi asked what it was like to be a learner in the class. Actually, that's a much tougher question than it seems - I suspect she was feeling a bit worried that none of us answered, but it's quite a deep one! Firstly, I enjoyed the class. I was engaged, didn't find myself tuning out, and the three hours disappeared into perhaps an hour of perceived time. That always shows I'm interested in what I'm up to. Why? I think it was well structured - designed to move, designed to get us thinking when we were supposed to. Thinking was broken up by doing. Doing was broken up by talking. It appealed to various modes of learning (visual - ppt, aural - lots of talking, kinaesthetic - posters). I think the success is in the design of the lesson. I guess this comes with experience, but I am definitely going to copy this structure in my own lessons. My only concern was that there wasn't enough time to finish what we were supposed to do, with the amount of thought we wanted to put in. I will think about that too, when it comes to my own classes. One interesting thing - everyone could and did start working straight away. In my maths classes last year, some students were just not capable of starting immediately - they fiddled with pencils, dropped rulers, talked, asked for help... Was the success of immediate work due to the age of the students, or is it in the structure of the lesson? Probably a bit of both, but I suspect the latter more than the former. Perhaps the think-pair-share, and POE structures will get the students motivated from the outset.

Well, I've put this blog entry together off and on over the course of this day, so I'll end it now!

Check here in a week for the next exciting adventure :P

M

Journal Entry 1 - Following 28/2/08 Tute & Lecture

Well, here is the first in a series of diatribe that will surely bore anyone who happens upon this blog lol!

The first week is over, and Science education has begun. I have to admit I am still a little nervous of becoming a science and chemistry teacher. I think today's POE largely demonstrated that I am not the only one who would have these concerns though! There were clearly disagreements about one of the commonest physics experiments on the planet - which of the equivalently sized but unevenly weighted balls will hit the ground first, if they are released from the same height and at the same time. What heartens me is that I think I did recall the science behind this one....but not everyone did, and without a shadow of a doubt, at many points I will struggle with some of the content that surely I should know. So many of the teachers-to-be could barely believe the four storey drop resulted in the balls dropping at different rates. What will I be caught out on?

So I am still nervous.

Having said that, I thought the POE approach is a very engaging one for students. Will I be able to do them this effectively? What exactly was it about it that made it engaging, and what exactly was wrong with the first demonstration that made it a "bad" POE (apart from the obvious 'bore' factor for the students)? What was the good recipe?

• Is it the entertainment aspect (Greg was certainly entertaining!)?
• Is it the build up of suspense? No matter what you're doing, if you can add a bit of suspense it's interesting.
• Was it that people all wanted to see if their guess was right - the voting approach makes it a bit like gambling where you really must have the answer.

What was it? There was no explanation by the lecturers after the experiment until the tutes. Do you usually leave explaining to a group discussion, as it was with us, or do students research individually first in a regular classroom?

And the failed one?

• Was it too short?
• Not enough time to think? Being rushed didn't give enough time to contemplate the prediction, do the observation properly, or really explain anything.
• Lacked entertainment? If this was the problem, is it really necessary for teachers to be actors?

Explicit connections were not made to the 'real world', other than the obvious that we're all held down by gravity, but why should the students care about the outcome? I don't believe the interest had anything to do with real life context. Hmmm. Time to do some reading, on multiple fronts.

I also found the 'shut eyes' for the 'predict' part of the POE demonstration to be an interesting approach. Were other students as confronted by this as I was? How many would abstain/give a biased answer if they could see the weight of opinion in a show of hands? I can see why it was done, but I felt like the lecturers would quietly take note of who understood the science & who didn't, and frankly, their opinion holds significantly more weight than my peers' - especially since I don't know many of them as yet. I can see how a classroom might be different in this regard though. This problem seems like an ideal moment for a technological solution to me - the work that Richard O'Donovan is doing with iPod Touches, for instantaneous survey data collection within a classroom springs to mind - I wonder if I'll be able to convince a school to buy a class set...hehe. Really not likely, but I can think of a myriad of uses for this single device within a science classroom. This is an interesting thing to me (actually, a bit of a relief!), as I really struggled on the use of technology for maths teaching last year, b/c many of the software programmes just seemed to be there for the sake of gimmikery & I'm not a fan of that. Science classrooms seem to have a more obvious authentic use for emerging technology to me....maybe I'm just a bit blind with the maths & need to think more.

Other things from the lecture - I loved the fact that all the lecturers are also tutors - it's very confidence inspiring. Also, the connection between the lecture and the tute is seamless, when the people leading them are one and the same. It was nice that the lecture was shared in delivery - kinda like 'team teaching', which I have heard about but not experienced until now.

The half hour break left me a little at a loose end, but maybe it was necessary from the lecturer's perspective, as my observation is that students always have things to sort out at the end of lectures. The price of having the lecturer the same person as the tutor, I suppose.

The 'get to know you' in tute was nice, but I hope I remember everyone! Not too good at that I'm afraid :-( I'll know everyone soon enough - it seems like a really nice, diverse group in Mandi's tute. I must remember to ask Mandi what her 'trick' is for remembering names - she said she had one.

I got more out of the discussion relating to 'camp ideas' than I thought I might have - it's great trying to think up ideas for activities that will teach science in a meaningful and effective way. Much more thinking to do in this area for me, but I could put more context around the ideas our group was coming up with, as a result of last year's study.

I've been doing some reading on 'talk aloud', which was linked from Mandi's blog. I notice Mandi does this quite a bit, and I wonder - does Mandi vocalise things she's genuinely wondering about for herself, or things she thinks we should be wondering about? Must ask her.... probably a bit of both I suspect. Does there come a point where your reflective questioning undermines the position of 'knowledgeable person' as a teacher? With me, perhaps I should hold back on wondering out loud about the scientific facts too much....strike a balance lol!

Anyway, enough for now. Until next time, dear blog reader :P