This week we were all charged with a little research task of finding chemistry software on the internet. Thanks be to Kate, who set up the wiki this time! It's been brilliant adding to it!
Firstly, for every one bit of good software, there's at least 10 that seem like garbage! It makes finding the good ones a rather slow process.
Having said that, there are some astoundingly good pieces of software out there.
Here's the link to our wiki... http://edf4403.wikidot.com/
Whilst not a lot can be reflected on in the way of learning for me, I still found this a very practical use of time as when I eventually get to teaching, I doubt I'm going to have hours to spend searching for good websites - this will come in very handy.
The portfolio is still bothering me, btw!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The practicum experience & 18/9 tute
Chemistry Teaching Rounds
Well, firstly I thought it would be useful to put down my accumulated reflections of the chemistry teaching round experience.
I had a wonderful time! I was teaching a group of 9 girls, and they were just brilliant to work with. 7 of them were from NESB, and several of those really did struggle with English. This part of the teaching, which was less chem-specific and more communication oriented was very interesting & a bit daunting. I did a survey after the first lesson, to find a bit more about the girls themselves & also what they liked/didn't like about chem. One of the comments was that they liked the power point that I did, so I thought to myself 'yes, even though it's transmissive, for the significant number of students in the class who may need to go away and translate things, it might be useful'. So, I merrily made a short (10 - 15 min max) power points & related handouts for each 'teaching' lesson (note the quotes - all lessons are learning ones, some seem to need the teacher to talk a bit) for reference. At the end, I did another survey & guess what they said - 'less power points!!'. This is almost humerous, as I generally wouldn't do much transmissive type of teaching, & wouldn't even think about doing power points in my teaching, but I tried to use my knowledge of the students potential difficulties and fell short! I feel compelled to also say that these slideshows were pretty short - we did lots of examples, discussions, q & a, activities, working lessons, pracs etc etc so I really didn't just stand up there and drone on for hours (which would be boring for anyone and NOT a good way to teach!!).
So that was one mistake. I clearly need to research more about NESB and how to handle it in the classroom. Furthermore, I think these students have much greater difficulty with scientific language than students who've been brought up with English as a first language. Try explaining the difference between oxidant and oxidised....you'll see what I mean. The difference in the word is subtle, but the meaning is significantly different.
I also found a great context to try and bring into the Redox theme.....but it didn't even get off the starting block! I know the girls at this school go to GTAC in Y12 and look at the chemistry of alcohol processing in the body. So, I thought it would be fun to link Redox into this, and do a prac on alcolmeters and maintain a theme throughout on this (the textbook already covers mining, so why repeat this?). However, I couldn't use the chemicals involved as they were not in the school for safety reasons. I tried to get a breathalyzer kit through various places & failed & eventually I just ran out of time before I started the practicum to be able to get it together. So, the thematic approach was far more difficult than I had hoped. Instead, I ended up with a 'battery' theme, and the girls had a project to design & make a battery. I deliberately made this an open ended activity, and some students had difficulty with the concept of going off and researching how to build it themselves, where others did really, really well. Two girls in particular had the idea of daisy-chaining several galvanic cells together to get a better result. Others needed more support, which I know is a fairly common problem with open ended tasks. Still, they all got there & I believe learned quite a bit from the activity. It is quite difficult to teach a theme throughout - perhaps I should've been broader, but I managed somehow!
The girls also found optional lunchtime tutes really useful - it allowed those that were still coming to grips with parts of the topic to come and get a bit of extra help, whilst not holding back the others. I really struggle to find ways to differentiate the curriculm for kids in Chem. It's far easier in maths, although still not straightforward, but I need to work on this in Chemistry some more. I did it a bit, but I don't think well enough. There were two girls who seriously could've coped with much more than they got & I think next time I would make up 'extension' type sheets for students to optionally take, which would go into more detail than the Y11 curriculum required. The open ended assignment was certainly a good way to allow those students some lattitude, but it wasn't enough.
In Year 8 science I also did the 'sound off' trick on a video & it worked a treat! They found it challenging, but were clearly engaged and I ran the video again after we'd discussed everyone's thoughts & it was interesting to see the students' reactions to the original dialogue. Lots of "oh is that what they meant" moments - good thinking invovled! I also did a 'make a heart' modelling session (due to students frequently mislabelling parts of the heart in tests prior to my arrival) with red and blue playdough, which was very successful. The girls had to draw down the stages of their construction on an A3 sheet, and it was most interesting to see how much they discussed & learned from this activity. It was really valuable. They did much better on the next test too, which was great as it was the only thing they'd done on the heart inbetween tests, which proves this stuff actually works!
18/09 Tutorial
OK - now to last Thursday's tute.
We spent a looong time talking about our experiences, which was an interesting thing to be a part of. Some people sounded like they had a difficult time, and others had a ball. I Loved David's chemistry assignment - the CSI comic/poster/etc. I'll be taking that idea into classes in future, as it clearly contained all the necessary info whilst allowed for a great deal of individuality in the approach taken. I hadn't thought of a comic before!
The curriculum assignment is going to be very useful I think & I'm feeling impatient to get into it. I need to do them in order though, or else I'll get caught out.
Re: the portfolio discussion - I have to say I'm disappointed that Deb is disappointed that I think the way I teach chem is a subset of my overall teaching philosophy. There are certainly differences between them, but the overall aim is the same. Maybe I'm missing the point & the process of doing the portfolio will reveal that....
So, until next time, lovely reader!
M
Well, firstly I thought it would be useful to put down my accumulated reflections of the chemistry teaching round experience.
I had a wonderful time! I was teaching a group of 9 girls, and they were just brilliant to work with. 7 of them were from NESB, and several of those really did struggle with English. This part of the teaching, which was less chem-specific and more communication oriented was very interesting & a bit daunting. I did a survey after the first lesson, to find a bit more about the girls themselves & also what they liked/didn't like about chem. One of the comments was that they liked the power point that I did, so I thought to myself 'yes, even though it's transmissive, for the significant number of students in the class who may need to go away and translate things, it might be useful'. So, I merrily made a short (10 - 15 min max) power points & related handouts for each 'teaching' lesson (note the quotes - all lessons are learning ones, some seem to need the teacher to talk a bit) for reference. At the end, I did another survey & guess what they said - 'less power points!!'. This is almost humerous, as I generally wouldn't do much transmissive type of teaching, & wouldn't even think about doing power points in my teaching, but I tried to use my knowledge of the students potential difficulties and fell short! I feel compelled to also say that these slideshows were pretty short - we did lots of examples, discussions, q & a, activities, working lessons, pracs etc etc so I really didn't just stand up there and drone on for hours (which would be boring for anyone and NOT a good way to teach!!).
So that was one mistake. I clearly need to research more about NESB and how to handle it in the classroom. Furthermore, I think these students have much greater difficulty with scientific language than students who've been brought up with English as a first language. Try explaining the difference between oxidant and oxidised....you'll see what I mean. The difference in the word is subtle, but the meaning is significantly different.
I also found a great context to try and bring into the Redox theme.....but it didn't even get off the starting block! I know the girls at this school go to GTAC in Y12 and look at the chemistry of alcohol processing in the body. So, I thought it would be fun to link Redox into this, and do a prac on alcolmeters and maintain a theme throughout on this (the textbook already covers mining, so why repeat this?). However, I couldn't use the chemicals involved as they were not in the school for safety reasons. I tried to get a breathalyzer kit through various places & failed & eventually I just ran out of time before I started the practicum to be able to get it together. So, the thematic approach was far more difficult than I had hoped. Instead, I ended up with a 'battery' theme, and the girls had a project to design & make a battery. I deliberately made this an open ended activity, and some students had difficulty with the concept of going off and researching how to build it themselves, where others did really, really well. Two girls in particular had the idea of daisy-chaining several galvanic cells together to get a better result. Others needed more support, which I know is a fairly common problem with open ended tasks. Still, they all got there & I believe learned quite a bit from the activity. It is quite difficult to teach a theme throughout - perhaps I should've been broader, but I managed somehow!
The girls also found optional lunchtime tutes really useful - it allowed those that were still coming to grips with parts of the topic to come and get a bit of extra help, whilst not holding back the others. I really struggle to find ways to differentiate the curriculm for kids in Chem. It's far easier in maths, although still not straightforward, but I need to work on this in Chemistry some more. I did it a bit, but I don't think well enough. There were two girls who seriously could've coped with much more than they got & I think next time I would make up 'extension' type sheets for students to optionally take, which would go into more detail than the Y11 curriculum required. The open ended assignment was certainly a good way to allow those students some lattitude, but it wasn't enough.
In Year 8 science I also did the 'sound off' trick on a video & it worked a treat! They found it challenging, but were clearly engaged and I ran the video again after we'd discussed everyone's thoughts & it was interesting to see the students' reactions to the original dialogue. Lots of "oh is that what they meant" moments - good thinking invovled! I also did a 'make a heart' modelling session (due to students frequently mislabelling parts of the heart in tests prior to my arrival) with red and blue playdough, which was very successful. The girls had to draw down the stages of their construction on an A3 sheet, and it was most interesting to see how much they discussed & learned from this activity. It was really valuable. They did much better on the next test too, which was great as it was the only thing they'd done on the heart inbetween tests, which proves this stuff actually works!
18/09 Tutorial
OK - now to last Thursday's tute.
We spent a looong time talking about our experiences, which was an interesting thing to be a part of. Some people sounded like they had a difficult time, and others had a ball. I Loved David's chemistry assignment - the CSI comic/poster/etc. I'll be taking that idea into classes in future, as it clearly contained all the necessary info whilst allowed for a great deal of individuality in the approach taken. I hadn't thought of a comic before!
The curriculum assignment is going to be very useful I think & I'm feeling impatient to get into it. I need to do them in order though, or else I'll get caught out.
Re: the portfolio discussion - I have to say I'm disappointed that Deb is disappointed that I think the way I teach chem is a subset of my overall teaching philosophy. There are certainly differences between them, but the overall aim is the same. Maybe I'm missing the point & the process of doing the portfolio will reveal that....
So, until next time, lovely reader!
M
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Wikis for Group Work
Here are my thoughts on the effectiveness of using a wiki for the purposes of a group assignment (the unit of work) in Chem this past few weeks...
My main aim was to try it out on some adults, so we could analyze some advantages and disadvantages of the medium. Here is my list, for want of a better way to put it!
Disadvantages (either observed or I consider there's a definite potential for these issues)
- Too easy for a student to say they are confused by the technology and so not contribute properly. A new excuse for an old problem?
- Students may really be too daunted by the technology, and get bogged down with that rather than learning and contributing. Yes, these are two separate issues :-)
- If users don't log in, the changes made are not registered against anyone, which will make assessment difficult for the teacher (who did what?).
- It took too long to find a product and set it up. The free ones can't restrict visibility to select users only (perhaps a privacy issue here).
- Even though structuring of group assignments is always difficult, it was made more so with the wiki b/c it was slow to communicate & we assumed we could (in part) plan the assignment via the wiki. I don't think this part worked too well lol & it took a disproportionate amount of time in planning.
- Nobody likes to delete somebody else's work for fear of offending them, so the communication lines are not as effective when trying to chat largely via technology. I wonder if Gen Y or Gen C will experience this problem in the same way as we did...
- You still need to have plenty of face-to-face contact time, as the wiki doesn't help with planning assignments, it only caters for the actual 'doing' part.
This makes it sound like I'll never go near a wiki again, but actually, overall I thought it has great potential, with a little refinement.
- When students log in before editing the wiki, there are named, tracked changes to a single document. As a teacher, I'd like this kind of visibility particularly in group assignments where it's usually very difficult to know the break-up of work.
- As a student in group-work, you can all work on the same document without fear of version control (which inevitably goes pear-shaped).
- As a student, I liked being able to do the work in my own time and know where other people were at with their work. This visibility only really started happening about a week ago, but I liked it once it did. We live in a very 'now' society these days lol!
- I find this personally engaging as a medium, because it is different. Other people probably find the opposite but it shows this might appeal to some students simply for the sake of itself.
- I learned a bit more about wikis as a result of this, and am now thinking about how this technology will be useful in a variety of settings, including student group assignments (I had already listed it as one possible presentation method in the jigsaw assessment Kate!) and exactly this - units of work - for teachers in schools. I'm sure there's more...
Things that could be improved on when using it with students' group work
- Definitely pre-establish a wiki and load a broad structure for students. That part really was a time-pit & ineffective.
- Make up some clear guidelines about wiki etiquette (eg it's ok to delete other people's work in the process of improvement and refinement, as it's all recoverable via roll-back features anyway!).
- Do some simple training on the basics of how to use a wiki, so everyone feels capable of actually using it prior to undertaking assignments.
As we were experimenting & none of us had done anything like this before, these issues couldn't have been foreseen, but I'm glad we tried it out, as I feel I know much more about wikis and their potential now. It's not just a hype word to me anymore (does this mean I'll be less engaged next time, by definition?) :-)
In general, my thoughts on working through the content of the assignment are overall that this was a difficult but very good learning activity. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this was how challenging we found keeping a constant themed context right throughout a single unit of work, and in hindsight I think this reflects our own lack of depth of knowledge about chemistry in the world around us. I am very committed to bringing context into my science classrooms, and am slowly building up a bank of context based activities to use, but this was quite a bit more challenging than that. At first the idea of a thematic context distracted us from the chemistry, but in the end we came back to the ideas behind a CoRe and considered what the important concepts were and what content students needed to know, then found examples to demonstrate with in our chosen context . I still think we could have covered this a bit better, but it was a very beneficial process for us to go through. Apart from learning a bit of chemistry in the world around me, I also encountered the significant workload involved in generating a single unit to teach. In reality, I consider the unit we created still needs further work before it could be used to teach with, although it is a very good start. In addition, we all encountered having to negotiate the most appropriate approach to teaching the unit, which involved each of us having to step back from some of the ideas we individually had to find a common ground. I suspect if this were a real teaching situation, I would be less likely to negotiate on some of my viewpoints, which would make the process even more challenging than it already was. I wonder how my partners felt about it....
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Following Chem Workshop 3
Another terrific workshop! We did pracs :-)
It's been soooo long since I actually participated in a chemistry prac, and it reminds me of why I loved them back in the dark ages when I studied chem. I like the 'doing' and the unpredictability (say, of power cords catching fire, spectrometers not remaining calibrated etc.) and the fun of trying to find work-arounds to these problems. I like the measuring, and the uncertainty of doing something but not quite knowing for sure if it's right....in a word, exciting.
The biggest thing to strike me was the excellent way of changing pracs around to get students thinking harder. The group I was in was not given the procedure up-front; we had to work out what was going to happen in the prac before we ever got near the steps to follow. How much more thinking did we do - heaps! I'm going to try to sabotage all pracs from here on, b/c this was so much more effective in employing the higer-order thinking. It has similarities with POE in this regard.
I thought it was interesting how many people seemed instantaneously frozen at the 'emergency' of our plug catching fire - I suspect as science teachers we probably need to expose ourselves to emergency situations and find ways to quickly solve them. I really don't think fire drills cut it! It reminds me that I should know where every plug, tap and off switch is in each lab....
I had a really good discussion with Deb about assessment. It's been a common theme bugging me for a bit, and now I think I've come to a place where I'm comfortable. Assessment is against the learning continuum - that is, it's OK to mark a student harder than their peer for equal content work, if I set personal learning goals for them that is individualised based on what I expect they might be able to achieve. In the end, I will be reporting about where they are in respect to the continuum, and the brighter kids will end up further up on the dots than the kids who are struggling. If both groups work hard and make a quantum leap in understanding, they need to be rewarded for that in terms of marks. However, where they are in the continuum is the over-arching assessment that allows them to see where they are in respect to the standards for their year level. The trick will be to make that explicit, b/c you don't want little Johnny's mum coming in and blasting you for giving him good passes, but showing him only just at or below the VELS level for that year.... This approach sits well with me - I have tutored kids privately in maths, and have wondered how to incorporate the personalised learning that they do in that setting back into the classroom. Last year I had all but been convinced that you can't do that, but I have reverted back to being a believer in individualised learning plans. It will be effective for the students (although rather tiring for me!!). Feeling happy about that :-)
Somehow I thought we had another two weeks until full time placements, but my diary and Deb seem to think otherwise lol! The project is coming along, although it is a challenge. I was hoping that the wiki idea would minimise the amount of face-to-face time we need, but interestingly I don't think it works as well on that front due to dependencies on people working in order on their respective bits. The key advantage that I see is that we can all see the final project in one spot, vs. the usual email mess that has issues with which version is right. The other is that it is easy to track who has been doing the work, which I think is important from an assessment perspective. I realise we're going to have to work a bit like this once we're planning with colleagues in the workplace, but I suspect it will have a different dynamic. It's difficult to make progress - we spent much of Thursday's hour still talking about structure, which I really thought we should have had bedded down by now. The other downer is that Kate is the only one presenting our work next week - I have an all-day meeting on the project I'm working on and Julia flys out on Tuesday. In reality, we need to get this finished by Tuesday & I feel very guilty that Kate is being dumped with the presenting (and also crummy that I'll miss out on hearing the feedback!). Anyway, for those interested in looking at what we're doing (which is a bit sketchy at the moment), the wiki site is.... http://edf4403.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page. If you want to comment, could you leave it here on the blog rather than on the project for the moment though, as we are trying to keep the project to just us 3 temporarily.
Will add more to the journal as I go...
Cheers!
It's been soooo long since I actually participated in a chemistry prac, and it reminds me of why I loved them back in the dark ages when I studied chem. I like the 'doing' and the unpredictability (say, of power cords catching fire, spectrometers not remaining calibrated etc.) and the fun of trying to find work-arounds to these problems. I like the measuring, and the uncertainty of doing something but not quite knowing for sure if it's right....in a word, exciting.
The biggest thing to strike me was the excellent way of changing pracs around to get students thinking harder. The group I was in was not given the procedure up-front; we had to work out what was going to happen in the prac before we ever got near the steps to follow. How much more thinking did we do - heaps! I'm going to try to sabotage all pracs from here on, b/c this was so much more effective in employing the higer-order thinking. It has similarities with POE in this regard.
I thought it was interesting how many people seemed instantaneously frozen at the 'emergency' of our plug catching fire - I suspect as science teachers we probably need to expose ourselves to emergency situations and find ways to quickly solve them. I really don't think fire drills cut it! It reminds me that I should know where every plug, tap and off switch is in each lab....
I had a really good discussion with Deb about assessment. It's been a common theme bugging me for a bit, and now I think I've come to a place where I'm comfortable. Assessment is against the learning continuum - that is, it's OK to mark a student harder than their peer for equal content work, if I set personal learning goals for them that is individualised based on what I expect they might be able to achieve. In the end, I will be reporting about where they are in respect to the continuum, and the brighter kids will end up further up on the dots than the kids who are struggling. If both groups work hard and make a quantum leap in understanding, they need to be rewarded for that in terms of marks. However, where they are in the continuum is the over-arching assessment that allows them to see where they are in respect to the standards for their year level. The trick will be to make that explicit, b/c you don't want little Johnny's mum coming in and blasting you for giving him good passes, but showing him only just at or below the VELS level for that year.... This approach sits well with me - I have tutored kids privately in maths, and have wondered how to incorporate the personalised learning that they do in that setting back into the classroom. Last year I had all but been convinced that you can't do that, but I have reverted back to being a believer in individualised learning plans. It will be effective for the students (although rather tiring for me!!). Feeling happy about that :-)
Somehow I thought we had another two weeks until full time placements, but my diary and Deb seem to think otherwise lol! The project is coming along, although it is a challenge. I was hoping that the wiki idea would minimise the amount of face-to-face time we need, but interestingly I don't think it works as well on that front due to dependencies on people working in order on their respective bits. The key advantage that I see is that we can all see the final project in one spot, vs. the usual email mess that has issues with which version is right. The other is that it is easy to track who has been doing the work, which I think is important from an assessment perspective. I realise we're going to have to work a bit like this once we're planning with colleagues in the workplace, but I suspect it will have a different dynamic. It's difficult to make progress - we spent much of Thursday's hour still talking about structure, which I really thought we should have had bedded down by now. The other downer is that Kate is the only one presenting our work next week - I have an all-day meeting on the project I'm working on and Julia flys out on Tuesday. In reality, we need to get this finished by Tuesday & I feel very guilty that Kate is being dumped with the presenting (and also crummy that I'll miss out on hearing the feedback!). Anyway, for those interested in looking at what we're doing (which is a bit sketchy at the moment), the wiki site is.... http://edf4403.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page. If you want to comment, could you leave it here on the blog rather than on the project for the moment though, as we are trying to keep the project to just us 3 temporarily.
Will add more to the journal as I go...
Cheers!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Following Chem workshop 2
Wow! This was a brilliant workshop & it's been a real pain having to wait until now to get to write about it :(
Let's see...where to start. Assessment, I think! What a lively discussion we all had, but I am still undecided about what I will take from Uni as a whole in regard to assessment. The unit we covered last semester really appealed to my statistically focused background, in that rubrics, clear criteria, inter-rater and intra-rater reliability checks etc etc all provide a dependable framework from which we can fairly and consistently report on each students' skills. The volume and variety of assessment is also important, to ensure a diverse enough range of data to be able to make correct inferences on student learning. This is all clearly really important, but I do hear the comment that students don't actually receive the feedback they need from this type of reporting on assessment. Are they going to improve when they receive a result of 69% or a circle on a rubric? Not likely. I found it personally dissatisfying as a student too. In reality, teachers do much thinking about what they read of a student's work - this also needs to be reported and from the student's perspective, it is what allows them to improve. So, this is the multiple-focus of assessment - one is to reliably allow the teacher (then parents and other stakeholders) to concisely identify whether a student is reaching expected learning goals for that year level (lots of words is just too difficult to monitor), and the other is to provide information to the student about where they went well, and where they can improve/further their skills. The mark is important though - it is a quick indicator for the student to see if they're on track. For eg - if a student gets 90% on an assignment along with a whole bunch of comments suggesting where they can improve, the student will understand those comments are based on a more individualised learning plan, but that they are tracking very well with regard to year level expectations. I see them both as being important - the highest achievers are often very self-critical and I can imagine self-efficacy being undermined if they aren't made aware that they are "performing" well. Perhaps Deb's idea of the mark being handed out after comments have been read and discussed is a key here....unfortunately I can appreciate both sides to the assessment debate so this may end up being my middle ground. It was a very interesting and worthwhile discussion though & I am very glad we all had it - it's challenged my ideas just a bit (lot!).
The creative writing task was hilarious, and I can easily see it's value in determining student understanding. What a brilliant idea, and I am hoping to see an opportunity to use something similar to this on practicum :-) In terms of assessment, I see VELS as providing a really clear framework for marking this type of thing - it's interdisciplinary in that language and science domains should both be assessed. As the science teacher, I am going to be focussed on the student understanding of key science concepts, and think it should be marked accordingly. I could also provide a different mark for the language component, or better still, involve the English teacher and allow that person to use the task as part of their overall assessment of the student. As Oosterhof pointed out - items that are unrelated to instructional objectives should be excluded from grades (p222) and I really think that marking a student down for language troubles (for whatever reason) in a science class is unfair as it's assessing something unrelated to what we are intending to teach. If a student struggles in English, they need extra help, not marking down in every subject for it. There is another angle to this type of task - how do you assess from it? In theory, we're supposed to have criteria set up front, and correct the work accordingly. If it was formative assessment, would this really be necessary in a formal sense? A broad rubric identifying the key ideas expected to be demonstrated, with a HML assessment might be adequate....I need to see when I try it myself. Does the absence of comment on a particular scientific idea indicate lack of understanding, or creative omission because it doesn't fit with the storyline - could be either & therefore the task would be of limited value summatively (or even formatively). Hmmm....
I liked Deb's idea about interviewing technique - one to remember! Write the comments in pencil so parents can't look over the table and read what you've written. Also, identify ahead of time which parents are teachers, and which ones are on school council. Good political advice there!!
Next topic - movies in chemistry education. Actually, turning off the sound or video (not both lol!) was such a good idea! I have personally zoned out on many a DVD in classes - a moment to relax and not think too hard, so I can't imagine it's all that different for other students. The pedagogical ideas that we're encountering are so brilliant - I just don't think there will be enough time to learn them all before we're teachers ourselves, at which time I worry that we won't have a source of new tricks. Maybe I'll be lucky & get a helpful mentor in year 1.
List of good movies noted in class for chem and science ed - Contact, The Dish, I am legend (start off on cancer), Happy Feet (about Antarctica), Mad Max, Harry Potter (Biol & Chem - good descriptions of animals eg scrute, how might we create that spell), James Bond (Die another day has a disappearing car - physics), Indiana Jones (How have we changed our science?), Outbreak (biol), The Matrix, LOTR, Mythbusters (what is a valid test?), No reservations (chef).
Reminder to self - borrow the VisChem DVD from Deb (if she doesn't mind!) as I really loved the representation & want to see all that's on it...
Science Learning Hub website - http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/ is a really good website that Deb mentioned! If anyone reads this who hasn't checked it out yet, then go take a look!
On to the project - we're in the midst of trying to muddle ours in a Wiki format, which is kind've interesting & it will be fun to see what the other people in my group think of it. I like it so far, but will really jump in later tonight, once I put some real content up myself.
Anyway, enough blogging for now. See you next instalment!
M
Let's see...where to start. Assessment, I think! What a lively discussion we all had, but I am still undecided about what I will take from Uni as a whole in regard to assessment. The unit we covered last semester really appealed to my statistically focused background, in that rubrics, clear criteria, inter-rater and intra-rater reliability checks etc etc all provide a dependable framework from which we can fairly and consistently report on each students' skills. The volume and variety of assessment is also important, to ensure a diverse enough range of data to be able to make correct inferences on student learning. This is all clearly really important, but I do hear the comment that students don't actually receive the feedback they need from this type of reporting on assessment. Are they going to improve when they receive a result of 69% or a circle on a rubric? Not likely. I found it personally dissatisfying as a student too. In reality, teachers do much thinking about what they read of a student's work - this also needs to be reported and from the student's perspective, it is what allows them to improve. So, this is the multiple-focus of assessment - one is to reliably allow the teacher (then parents and other stakeholders) to concisely identify whether a student is reaching expected learning goals for that year level (lots of words is just too difficult to monitor), and the other is to provide information to the student about where they went well, and where they can improve/further their skills. The mark is important though - it is a quick indicator for the student to see if they're on track. For eg - if a student gets 90% on an assignment along with a whole bunch of comments suggesting where they can improve, the student will understand those comments are based on a more individualised learning plan, but that they are tracking very well with regard to year level expectations. I see them both as being important - the highest achievers are often very self-critical and I can imagine self-efficacy being undermined if they aren't made aware that they are "performing" well. Perhaps Deb's idea of the mark being handed out after comments have been read and discussed is a key here....unfortunately I can appreciate both sides to the assessment debate so this may end up being my middle ground. It was a very interesting and worthwhile discussion though & I am very glad we all had it - it's challenged my ideas just a bit (lot!).
The creative writing task was hilarious, and I can easily see it's value in determining student understanding. What a brilliant idea, and I am hoping to see an opportunity to use something similar to this on practicum :-) In terms of assessment, I see VELS as providing a really clear framework for marking this type of thing - it's interdisciplinary in that language and science domains should both be assessed. As the science teacher, I am going to be focussed on the student understanding of key science concepts, and think it should be marked accordingly. I could also provide a different mark for the language component, or better still, involve the English teacher and allow that person to use the task as part of their overall assessment of the student. As Oosterhof pointed out - items that are unrelated to instructional objectives should be excluded from grades (p222) and I really think that marking a student down for language troubles (for whatever reason) in a science class is unfair as it's assessing something unrelated to what we are intending to teach. If a student struggles in English, they need extra help, not marking down in every subject for it. There is another angle to this type of task - how do you assess from it? In theory, we're supposed to have criteria set up front, and correct the work accordingly. If it was formative assessment, would this really be necessary in a formal sense? A broad rubric identifying the key ideas expected to be demonstrated, with a HML assessment might be adequate....I need to see when I try it myself. Does the absence of comment on a particular scientific idea indicate lack of understanding, or creative omission because it doesn't fit with the storyline - could be either & therefore the task would be of limited value summatively (or even formatively). Hmmm....
I liked Deb's idea about interviewing technique - one to remember! Write the comments in pencil so parents can't look over the table and read what you've written. Also, identify ahead of time which parents are teachers, and which ones are on school council. Good political advice there!!
Next topic - movies in chemistry education. Actually, turning off the sound or video (not both lol!) was such a good idea! I have personally zoned out on many a DVD in classes - a moment to relax and not think too hard, so I can't imagine it's all that different for other students. The pedagogical ideas that we're encountering are so brilliant - I just don't think there will be enough time to learn them all before we're teachers ourselves, at which time I worry that we won't have a source of new tricks. Maybe I'll be lucky & get a helpful mentor in year 1.
List of good movies noted in class for chem and science ed - Contact, The Dish, I am legend (start off on cancer), Happy Feet (about Antarctica), Mad Max, Harry Potter (Biol & Chem - good descriptions of animals eg scrute, how might we create that spell), James Bond (Die another day has a disappearing car - physics), Indiana Jones (How have we changed our science?), Outbreak (biol), The Matrix, LOTR, Mythbusters (what is a valid test?), No reservations (chef).
Reminder to self - borrow the VisChem DVD from Deb (if she doesn't mind!) as I really loved the representation & want to see all that's on it...
Science Learning Hub website - http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/ is a really good website that Deb mentioned! If anyone reads this who hasn't checked it out yet, then go take a look!
On to the project - we're in the midst of trying to muddle ours in a Wiki format, which is kind've interesting & it will be fun to see what the other people in my group think of it. I like it so far, but will really jump in later tonight, once I put some real content up myself.
Anyway, enough blogging for now. See you next instalment!
M
Friday, July 18, 2008
Following Chem workshop 1
Hey, I'm back :-) Looks like another fun semester of blogging, so strap yourselves in folks. I notice for no good reason there's been another 6 visitors to the blog since last semester (the counter went on for the final post), so hello to all those bots out there too lol!
OK - on to more serious business. The first chemistry workshop - it was really good. The irony of my saying in week one that I'm a bit relieved there were other people besides me in the class who clearly felt their content knowledge wasn't as tight as it could be doesn't escape me. Deja vu from week 1 of science ed! Content knowledge is extremely important, and I know expectation is that we are all experts in this. For my own sanity though, I need to keep reminding myself that my observation over the last year and a half is that I can remember quickly what I thought I'd forgotten & in many ways I seem to put more perspective around it through refreshing. Another observation is that I still need to refresh what I really did think I knew, as to teach requires a different perspective than to learn and do. So, I must stop worrying so much, and trust a bit more in myself I think!
I found the like/dislike/remember/don't remember discussion we had interesting. Not remotely surprising that the outcome highlighted we all have different personal preferences, but I did think it was interesting that pretty much everyone audibly *groaned* over at least one topic in chem. Why is this? Who is so passionate about chemistry in the room that they could say 'I love it all' (besides Deb!)? I wonder if you'd get this for every subject in teacher education. I don't think I could put my hand up to disliking *anything* in maths (not even calculus, which seemed to amuse Kate!), yet there are certainly parts of chemistry that I felt were a drag & had to be tolerated to get to the good stuff. I need to think about why this is so a bit more, because it smells of being important when it comes to inspiring my own students. I need to find something to love about every aspect of chemistry, before I can bring it all to life in the classroom. This would need to be part of the 'refresher' I'm undertaking!!
It's good to see Shulman's seven knowledge domains link back into this unit. It makes very good sense & particularly the idea of PCK resonates well with me. This is where I need to focus some attention this semester - *how to decide* which is the best way of teaching various topics of chemistry. Are there any specific pedagogies that are used well in chemistry - I felt I was making progress w.r.t. maths and general science, but I need to do a mental shift to notice the ones that work well for chemistry specifically.
We also had a very useful discussion about VELS - the idea that the progression points don't actually constitute part of the standards is just amazing to me, and to be honest, a relief! I really didn't think they had much guidance for science when we looked at them, so I'll be very glad to not have to stick to them too rigidly. It'll be a very painful thing to have to report against them though (ugh!). I need some good skills w.r.t. how to design lovely open ended tasks in chemistry that will allow students to shine at their real level of knowledge (& VELS level!!). I wonder if there's a chemistry educator's book that can give examples, which might help me shift my thinking to how to construct really good questions that promote higher level thinking, whilst at the same time cateing to varying levels of ability and knowledge. Peter's one for maths has been very enlightening, but I'm struggling to know how to do this for such a practical subject as chem. I'm thinking in particular of two girls in year 8 that I think would've benefited from better questions than the ones I put forward in my last teaching rounds. Deb says the key 'thinking' questions should be created before the lesson, which I did, but I need to improve them to stimulate every student & not just 'most students'.
I liked the idea of the different faces of chemistry (which was also in the notes from Blackboard). The scientific face, technological face, the craft face (eg cooking, art, making beer!) and the magical face (eg SFX). I suspect it might be an inverse relationship to engagement for many students - the magic and craft is much more fun that the science and technology at first.
The model put up from Morene-Dershimer & Kent regarding the progression from PK to PCK is thought provoking. Right now I think I'm somewhere just to the left of the middle arrow....developing the context specific PK. The boxes on the right are still entering the equation for every lesson I plan, but they are much more challenging to incorporate, so I think I'll stick with assessing myself as being mostly in the middle at the moment. I still think the word 'reflection' should appear more than it does though - I would think as a teacher you'd need to reflect on whether your content knowledge is current (journals etc to be kept up with), whether your curriculum knowledge is current, whether the assessment was most appropriate etc etc etc. Everything will need reflection, not just the PK as these boxes would imply.
As an aside - one student put up An Oil Rig Cat as an acronym for Anode, Oxidation is loss, Reduction is gain, Cathode. Quite nice :-)
The activity - planning a unit. One thing I really like about this is that it's *not* marked, because I truly loathe group work being marked, but I do like group work! The activity will be really useful & I'm so glad it's all being shared on Blackboard!
OK - now let's see what the questions I'm meant to be answering are, since I've finished my brain-dump of the lesson!
Have a good week :-)
M
OK - on to more serious business. The first chemistry workshop - it was really good. The irony of my saying in week one that I'm a bit relieved there were other people besides me in the class who clearly felt their content knowledge wasn't as tight as it could be doesn't escape me. Deja vu from week 1 of science ed! Content knowledge is extremely important, and I know expectation is that we are all experts in this. For my own sanity though, I need to keep reminding myself that my observation over the last year and a half is that I can remember quickly what I thought I'd forgotten & in many ways I seem to put more perspective around it through refreshing. Another observation is that I still need to refresh what I really did think I knew, as to teach requires a different perspective than to learn and do. So, I must stop worrying so much, and trust a bit more in myself I think!
I found the like/dislike/remember/don't remember discussion we had interesting. Not remotely surprising that the outcome highlighted we all have different personal preferences, but I did think it was interesting that pretty much everyone audibly *groaned* over at least one topic in chem. Why is this? Who is so passionate about chemistry in the room that they could say 'I love it all' (besides Deb!)? I wonder if you'd get this for every subject in teacher education. I don't think I could put my hand up to disliking *anything* in maths (not even calculus, which seemed to amuse Kate!), yet there are certainly parts of chemistry that I felt were a drag & had to be tolerated to get to the good stuff. I need to think about why this is so a bit more, because it smells of being important when it comes to inspiring my own students. I need to find something to love about every aspect of chemistry, before I can bring it all to life in the classroom. This would need to be part of the 'refresher' I'm undertaking!!
It's good to see Shulman's seven knowledge domains link back into this unit. It makes very good sense & particularly the idea of PCK resonates well with me. This is where I need to focus some attention this semester - *how to decide* which is the best way of teaching various topics of chemistry. Are there any specific pedagogies that are used well in chemistry - I felt I was making progress w.r.t. maths and general science, but I need to do a mental shift to notice the ones that work well for chemistry specifically.
We also had a very useful discussion about VELS - the idea that the progression points don't actually constitute part of the standards is just amazing to me, and to be honest, a relief! I really didn't think they had much guidance for science when we looked at them, so I'll be very glad to not have to stick to them too rigidly. It'll be a very painful thing to have to report against them though (ugh!). I need some good skills w.r.t. how to design lovely open ended tasks in chemistry that will allow students to shine at their real level of knowledge (& VELS level!!). I wonder if there's a chemistry educator's book that can give examples, which might help me shift my thinking to how to construct really good questions that promote higher level thinking, whilst at the same time cateing to varying levels of ability and knowledge. Peter's one for maths has been very enlightening, but I'm struggling to know how to do this for such a practical subject as chem. I'm thinking in particular of two girls in year 8 that I think would've benefited from better questions than the ones I put forward in my last teaching rounds. Deb says the key 'thinking' questions should be created before the lesson, which I did, but I need to improve them to stimulate every student & not just 'most students'.
I liked the idea of the different faces of chemistry (which was also in the notes from Blackboard). The scientific face, technological face, the craft face (eg cooking, art, making beer!) and the magical face (eg SFX). I suspect it might be an inverse relationship to engagement for many students - the magic and craft is much more fun that the science and technology at first.
The model put up from Morene-Dershimer & Kent regarding the progression from PK to PCK is thought provoking. Right now I think I'm somewhere just to the left of the middle arrow....developing the context specific PK. The boxes on the right are still entering the equation for every lesson I plan, but they are much more challenging to incorporate, so I think I'll stick with assessing myself as being mostly in the middle at the moment. I still think the word 'reflection' should appear more than it does though - I would think as a teacher you'd need to reflect on whether your content knowledge is current (journals etc to be kept up with), whether your curriculum knowledge is current, whether the assessment was most appropriate etc etc etc. Everything will need reflection, not just the PK as these boxes would imply.
As an aside - one student put up An Oil Rig Cat as an acronym for Anode, Oxidation is loss, Reduction is gain, Cathode. Quite nice :-)
The activity - planning a unit. One thing I really like about this is that it's *not* marked, because I truly loathe group work being marked, but I do like group work! The activity will be really useful & I'm so glad it's all being shared on Blackboard!
OK - now let's see what the questions I'm meant to be answering are, since I've finished my brain-dump of the lesson!
- What happened/what did I do....covered ("check")
- What was important - actually edit above - I only write about what I think was important. Yes, we did roll-call. It was important for Deb, but not for me so I don't generally blog about it. So "check".
- Which goals, resolutions or learning wishes does this give rise to? Included above where I thought of them.
- What was I thinking...well, at the time I'm not sure, except I've included all the relevant thoughts as I recalled them.
- What was I feeling? Wow - well, a little unsure of myself at first. Still am, I suppose. Happy to be diving into a worthwhile activity, as I always learn something from them. Happy that I know a couple of faces in the classroom, and that Deb is very approachable. Enthused.
- What did I do - I think this repeats question 1?
- How can I use the sessions to practice the type of behaviour I want to learn? Another good question - I imagine the development of the unit in conjunction with others will be reflective of what could happen in schools, so this is great practice. Also observing Deb's teaching pedagogies will be useful (eg. the 'best worst remember forget activity). Hmmm - one to think about!
Have a good week :-)
M
Friday, May 23, 2008
Following lecture & Tute 7
The Lecture
The focus for the day was pedagogical content knowledge, but I'm going to start by talking about transmissive teaching (because it came up as pretty much being the opposite teaching style).
Here's a question. If the lecture we attended was a transmissive style of teaching, and transmissive teaching = 'comparatively poor' teaching, how can we (as learners) have gained so much from it? What has sparked that question in my mind particularly is one of the students in my tute explaining that she loves sitting in lectures to learn - transmissive teaching works for her as a learner.
I can tell you when I think lectures work for me. Firstly, Mandi's deliberate pauses for us to discuss thoughts amongst ourselves was brilliant as a medium to express the inevitable questions that pop into my head during hour-long listening sessions. I often forget these thoughts, except this time I didn't because of the opportunities to discuss them and write them down. Incidentally, the usual lack of pauses is why I get frustrated by lectures that are designed around students copying notes down, as personally I don't have time to write notes + thoughts and I struggle to let go of the former (which I probably should) to make sure I record the latter. The pauses was very powerful & I will make a point of doing this if I ever use powerpoints in my own classrooms. Mandi, if you do read this journal entry, can I ask how terrifying as a lecturer it is, handing over to students to discuss their thoughts independently of you? How do you know they are on task properly, given the volume was so loud I could barely hear the person I was talking to (so I assume you were in the same boat)?
Secondly, lectures are like reading very directed books to me. They give me the opportunity to hear expert opinions on a topic that is 100% relevant to what I am learning at that time. In honesty though, it depends on my mood & what else is happening in my life as to whether I then go away and properly think about them, or if I need a task to consolidate the content. This journal, for example, forces me to do that even in my busiest moments of time. But, I have heard enough students complain about the journal to know that it doesn't work for everyone. I also know not everyone is actually doing them, so they miss out on the potential benefit. These are thought provoking concepts - if some of what we must teach is transmissive (because it would seem sometimes inescapable) how do we best overcome the problems associated with it? Pedagogy, by the way, is probably going to be the key theme in my meta-reflection!!!
OK - PCK. What a clever trick, linking two words to be deliberately uncoordinated to say, so that people will have to think about them to remember it. Another cool thing to remember.
I liked Mandi's comment that 'the essence of PCK is active teaching'. Somehow, this came through in the readings and in everything that was discussed throughout the lecture & it really resonates with me as something to strive towards. When you break it down, there is SO much knowledge over and above the content that is needed to teach students really well (Kate and I jotted down 12 different points, but I'm certain there's hundreds). To me, PCK = excellent teaching, and it is going to require an enormous amount of thought before each and every lesson to make sure I do the best job I can. Will I ever be satisfied that the best job I can do at that time is the same as the best job I will ever be capable of? Will I ever master it to my satisfaction? Sounds a bit tormenting :-)
Tute
Speaking of enormous thought, I foolishly thought that the table Mandi popped up, detailing 'big ideas' vs. teaching & learning factors would be pretty straightforward to fill in, if a little time consuming. However, it turned out to be a terrific activity that highlighted just how difficult it is to even work out the big ideas, let along the teaching and learning aspects. Erin & I didn't finish it, but we both wanted to so I'll try to do it before next Thursday to share with her. It would seem a very good tool for distilling your thoughts on teaching & I can see it being useful when topic planning with other teachers.
However, this is discussing the tute in reverse, so I shall go back to the beginning.
I agree with Deb - I don't at all look like the photo on my student card, but I blame the *high quality* webcam that took it :-) Hehe. Her comments on who looked like their photos, and how many Jessicas there are in the class really remind me of how I feel when I am coming to grips with who is in my class on placement. It takes me ages to work students out, and after 2 weeks at Fintona I can't say I know every student from any of my 4 classes (less than 5 hours total exposure to each class), which bothers me. How many students did Deb feel she knew by the end of the tute? I'll wager more than I would've in her shoes. How am I going to get better at that initial student assessment?
In an over-simplified summary of lecturer's teaching styles in tutes, I'd say Mandi likes to create discussions, Deb likes to have a good debate and Keasty likes to put students on the spot (they all get a chance of the spotlight). They are all really effective, but incredibly different teaching styles which absolutely highlights for me why this course cannot spoon feed the students with a 'right' way to teach. I think I'm just getting tired, but my patience is wearing thin on how many times I've heard other students complaining that they're not getting 'answers' - there honestly isn't one answer, there's hundreds. Best practice is an open ended activity - there's loads of different but equally correct outcomes. I might've grumped at one of the other students in tute a little b/c of these thoughts (I'm vowing to keep my mouth shut tight next week!).
I was very, very happy to have a group discussion that had such a focus on VCE. It bothers me enormously that it is usually taught in such a transmissive way, but hearing Deborah agree that it shouldn't be is really liberating. The challenge for me is to find a way to teach it differently, when I have had no example of how to do this either from my own learning background, or in any placement situation. I feel like I'm going to be making it up, which is really scary because the consequences of me getting it wrong are huge for the students & there's no time to backtrack at this level of education. The other influence is that students, parents and colleagues may not like me approaching it differently to the 'usual way', which will be even harder to overcome as a beginning teacher. A comment that Helen Forgasz made last year w.r.t. maths was that we have to teach 'smarter' - activities that are well designed will produce learning outcomes that are superior and more engaging to traditional methods. I have seen examples of this at work for junior/middle level maths, but again, not for VCE, although I now think I understand how to apply those concepts at any level in maths. Not so with chem, but perhaps I'll gain skills next semester in this regard & hopefully the book I borrowed from Deb (THANK YOU) will give me some good ideas for context driven activities. I also need to look at PEEL more - maybe there's some good year 12 stuff there so I don't have to become some creative genius (which I am certainly not!!).
I also liked the concept that if you teach year 12 chem well & the students learn well, the exams will be straightforward - that is, you don't need to teach to the exams. However, I don't think everyone was so convinced of this - even me to an extent. I think there's a happy medium - explicitly pointing out what may be of relevance to the exam would surely be helpful for students, but I don't want it to be restricting my teaching methods too much. The exams are an unfortunate fact of life & regardless that only 30% of students go to Uni, the mark at the end of their year is very important to many students, as well as knowing the content. I think balance is the key word, and it might take me quite a while to work out what that actually means!
So it was another interesting, thought provoking lecture and tute that has left me with more questions and some answers. I'm getting an idea that this might be how I muddle my way through actual teaching!! Poor kids loool!
The focus for the day was pedagogical content knowledge, but I'm going to start by talking about transmissive teaching (because it came up as pretty much being the opposite teaching style).
Here's a question. If the lecture we attended was a transmissive style of teaching, and transmissive teaching = 'comparatively poor' teaching, how can we (as learners) have gained so much from it? What has sparked that question in my mind particularly is one of the students in my tute explaining that she loves sitting in lectures to learn - transmissive teaching works for her as a learner.
I can tell you when I think lectures work for me. Firstly, Mandi's deliberate pauses for us to discuss thoughts amongst ourselves was brilliant as a medium to express the inevitable questions that pop into my head during hour-long listening sessions. I often forget these thoughts, except this time I didn't because of the opportunities to discuss them and write them down. Incidentally, the usual lack of pauses is why I get frustrated by lectures that are designed around students copying notes down, as personally I don't have time to write notes + thoughts and I struggle to let go of the former (which I probably should) to make sure I record the latter. The pauses was very powerful & I will make a point of doing this if I ever use powerpoints in my own classrooms. Mandi, if you do read this journal entry, can I ask how terrifying as a lecturer it is, handing over to students to discuss their thoughts independently of you? How do you know they are on task properly, given the volume was so loud I could barely hear the person I was talking to (so I assume you were in the same boat)?
Secondly, lectures are like reading very directed books to me. They give me the opportunity to hear expert opinions on a topic that is 100% relevant to what I am learning at that time. In honesty though, it depends on my mood & what else is happening in my life as to whether I then go away and properly think about them, or if I need a task to consolidate the content. This journal, for example, forces me to do that even in my busiest moments of time. But, I have heard enough students complain about the journal to know that it doesn't work for everyone. I also know not everyone is actually doing them, so they miss out on the potential benefit. These are thought provoking concepts - if some of what we must teach is transmissive (because it would seem sometimes inescapable) how do we best overcome the problems associated with it? Pedagogy, by the way, is probably going to be the key theme in my meta-reflection!!!
OK - PCK. What a clever trick, linking two words to be deliberately uncoordinated to say, so that people will have to think about them to remember it. Another cool thing to remember.
I liked Mandi's comment that 'the essence of PCK is active teaching'. Somehow, this came through in the readings and in everything that was discussed throughout the lecture & it really resonates with me as something to strive towards. When you break it down, there is SO much knowledge over and above the content that is needed to teach students really well (Kate and I jotted down 12 different points, but I'm certain there's hundreds). To me, PCK = excellent teaching, and it is going to require an enormous amount of thought before each and every lesson to make sure I do the best job I can. Will I ever be satisfied that the best job I can do at that time is the same as the best job I will ever be capable of? Will I ever master it to my satisfaction? Sounds a bit tormenting :-)
Tute
Speaking of enormous thought, I foolishly thought that the table Mandi popped up, detailing 'big ideas' vs. teaching & learning factors would be pretty straightforward to fill in, if a little time consuming. However, it turned out to be a terrific activity that highlighted just how difficult it is to even work out the big ideas, let along the teaching and learning aspects. Erin & I didn't finish it, but we both wanted to so I'll try to do it before next Thursday to share with her. It would seem a very good tool for distilling your thoughts on teaching & I can see it being useful when topic planning with other teachers.
However, this is discussing the tute in reverse, so I shall go back to the beginning.
I agree with Deb - I don't at all look like the photo on my student card, but I blame the *high quality* webcam that took it :-) Hehe. Her comments on who looked like their photos, and how many Jessicas there are in the class really remind me of how I feel when I am coming to grips with who is in my class on placement. It takes me ages to work students out, and after 2 weeks at Fintona I can't say I know every student from any of my 4 classes (less than 5 hours total exposure to each class), which bothers me. How many students did Deb feel she knew by the end of the tute? I'll wager more than I would've in her shoes. How am I going to get better at that initial student assessment?
In an over-simplified summary of lecturer's teaching styles in tutes, I'd say Mandi likes to create discussions, Deb likes to have a good debate and Keasty likes to put students on the spot (they all get a chance of the spotlight). They are all really effective, but incredibly different teaching styles which absolutely highlights for me why this course cannot spoon feed the students with a 'right' way to teach. I think I'm just getting tired, but my patience is wearing thin on how many times I've heard other students complaining that they're not getting 'answers' - there honestly isn't one answer, there's hundreds. Best practice is an open ended activity - there's loads of different but equally correct outcomes. I might've grumped at one of the other students in tute a little b/c of these thoughts (I'm vowing to keep my mouth shut tight next week!).
I was very, very happy to have a group discussion that had such a focus on VCE. It bothers me enormously that it is usually taught in such a transmissive way, but hearing Deborah agree that it shouldn't be is really liberating. The challenge for me is to find a way to teach it differently, when I have had no example of how to do this either from my own learning background, or in any placement situation. I feel like I'm going to be making it up, which is really scary because the consequences of me getting it wrong are huge for the students & there's no time to backtrack at this level of education. The other influence is that students, parents and colleagues may not like me approaching it differently to the 'usual way', which will be even harder to overcome as a beginning teacher. A comment that Helen Forgasz made last year w.r.t. maths was that we have to teach 'smarter' - activities that are well designed will produce learning outcomes that are superior and more engaging to traditional methods. I have seen examples of this at work for junior/middle level maths, but again, not for VCE, although I now think I understand how to apply those concepts at any level in maths. Not so with chem, but perhaps I'll gain skills next semester in this regard & hopefully the book I borrowed from Deb (THANK YOU) will give me some good ideas for context driven activities. I also need to look at PEEL more - maybe there's some good year 12 stuff there so I don't have to become some creative genius (which I am certainly not!!).
I also liked the concept that if you teach year 12 chem well & the students learn well, the exams will be straightforward - that is, you don't need to teach to the exams. However, I don't think everyone was so convinced of this - even me to an extent. I think there's a happy medium - explicitly pointing out what may be of relevance to the exam would surely be helpful for students, but I don't want it to be restricting my teaching methods too much. The exams are an unfortunate fact of life & regardless that only 30% of students go to Uni, the mark at the end of their year is very important to many students, as well as knowing the content. I think balance is the key word, and it might take me quite a while to work out what that actually means!
So it was another interesting, thought provoking lecture and tute that has left me with more questions and some answers. I'm getting an idea that this might be how I muddle my way through actual teaching!! Poor kids loool!
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Following Tute 6
Well,
I finally made it to the journal before the next lecutre/tute session :-)
A different format for the tutes again. First up a debrief from practicum for our science specialism - mine being Chem. I have to admit that I think I gave my already sore neck (with mildly prolapsed disk) a workout carrying all my practicum work in as requested. We didn't (and clearly couldn't have, given time) look at the lesson plans or reports (as was mooted), but this doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.
The key focus of the class was to list the things we want to learn before our next teaching rounds and what we want to do better next time, which was a good idea. It got me thinking, and I suspect the answers I gave weren't as thorough as I would now like them to be for two reasons - firstly it was the first time I had been reunited with some classmates fng practicum which is somewhat distracting (sorry for talking so much Deborah!), and secondly I like to spend 'think time' on something that clearly has relevance to my future learning. So here goes the somewhat revised list, that I might improve on again as time goes by:
M's To-Do list - completion before next practicum/before I'm a fully fledged teacher...
After the tute, there was around half an hour to kill....one of the sessions was cancelled (the discussion group on the course) and it was too late to gate crash general science. Time to catch up some more with Kate, since we didn't finish our yammer in chem tute ;-)
OK - next session with Eryn O'Mahony
IT in science - WOW! This was really really great. Unfortunately, I haven't found the promised presentation on blackboard yet, that contains the wonderful links to websites, and overview of what was talked about. The key technology that I thought I would use well, was:
A really good chance to debrief on the assignment and discuss misconceptions with other students. We hadn't really done this properly before, so I found it really great to hear other people's experiences and the misconceptions they identified. As usual, I talk too much - I hope nobody minds (it's coming to something when one of the students in the Chem tute said "Oh you're Meredith" - hmmmmm). I hope the other students all agree to put their assignment 2a up on blackboard, b/c I know how long it took me to research acids and bases, and the thoughts of doing that over and over and over every time I teach a new topic is, well, actually just not possible & I'll resort to the high level stuff on that handout from a few weeks back. Sharing info would be great (it worked well in Maths last year).
BTW - thanks to the student who passed on the link for making a $100 interactive whiteboard (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/) with a Wii remote, bluetooth, laptop and IR pen. I'll be doing this over the holidays for fun (my kids have a Wii so I'll borrow one of their remotes...even better!).
The extension on the assignment was a welcome relief, btw. It had been a busy few weeks, and it gave me a couple of night's peace before it was due :-) It occurred to me that there was a huge similarity between the assignment for EDF4113 and EDF4004 (make up 2 lesson plans in our specialism area). I wonder if anyone actually copied their assignment from one unit to the other? It would seem possible to me for both units to combine forces, and review the same lesson plans, each with a different focus (4004 for assessment procedures, 4113 for science education rigor and misconception busting). It might be a bit difficult to coordinate though....
That's all for now folks.
See you next time!
I finally made it to the journal before the next lecutre/tute session :-)
A different format for the tutes again. First up a debrief from practicum for our science specialism - mine being Chem. I have to admit that I think I gave my already sore neck (with mildly prolapsed disk) a workout carrying all my practicum work in as requested. We didn't (and clearly couldn't have, given time) look at the lesson plans or reports (as was mooted), but this doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.
The key focus of the class was to list the things we want to learn before our next teaching rounds and what we want to do better next time, which was a good idea. It got me thinking, and I suspect the answers I gave weren't as thorough as I would now like them to be for two reasons - firstly it was the first time I had been reunited with some classmates fng practicum which is somewhat distracting (sorry for talking so much Deborah!), and secondly I like to spend 'think time' on something that clearly has relevance to my future learning. So here goes the somewhat revised list, that I might improve on again as time goes by:
M's To-Do list - completion before next practicum/before I'm a fully fledged teacher...
- Go through the Chemistry course (using texts?) topic by topic and try to think up what students might query. They won't be the same things I did, and I need to be able to better anticipate the currently unexpected, as it's really hard to answer questions *well* on the fly. This is the "unpacking" and "reconstructing" process for teaching we were talking about in tute, and for me I think it will be very important to do in advance.
- To think up interesting ways to teach chem - not just the chalk and talk, with a few experiments in between to hopefully prove the theories. It annoys me that VCE (not just Chem) is so dull in this way...as though the only way to teach the "real" work is with a whiteboard, powerpoint and textbook (ugh). The word 'authentic' springs to mind - why will my students care about the trends in the periodic table? Why should they give a hoot about the construct of an atom? What about chemical reactions, etc etc - I need to find some meaningful and engaging contexts to place around at least most, if not all of the chemistry topics. I'll start with the topics I might be teaching the year 11's next time.
- Find some good software! For God's sake, this is the age of technology, and if I can imagine it, surely someone else has built it!! Try telling that to my Google search engine at 2am during practicum :(
- Learn if there are any current 'best practice' things I should know about Chemistry, that I haven't thought up yet.
- Look into common misconceptions for Chemistry in particular, but also for other 7 - 10 science units. Is there a recommended book? I found one reasonably comprehensive book, in the library, but would like one of my own for down the track (can't keep coming back to Monash!).
- Investigate Deb's three big ideas. I'll put down my guesstimate now, and compare with what I learn through the tutes (I'm hoping Deb will fess up the ideas before the end comes!) Idea 1 - atomic structure/intramolecular forces. Idea 2 - Intermolecular forces. Idea 3 - Reactions between molecules. I wonder how naive I'm being with these guesses...
- Resources, resources, resources - and good ones to use with students at that! I saw some brilliant polymer models at GTAC (electronic and physical), I love the magnetic molecules, and even the slightly boring Effex plastic molecule builders. What else is there to help students understand the abstract?
- Learn about Wiki and set one up in advance of practicum.... I want to try it out on the year 11s!
- All things related to above research lol! Seriously though...
- Improve communication with the year 11 group - there aren't enough lessons per week to actually feel connected with their level of understanding (I only got to teach 5 classes in the fortnight I was there). Try this via a Wiki, plus up-front establish a tute-group time.
- Better focus on assessment for year 11. Why do I feel I was I noticeably better at this with the junior levels?
- Difficult to gauge prior knowledge (I assumed too much & had to backtrack) for senior chem - start with a very brief pre-test to get a better handle on their current understanding & let that guide the lessons. Also, go in to observe the chem classes for a week prior (I'm sure Ruth wouldn't mind).
- Think of relevant contexts and links when teaching chem. I feel I did well with this for year 7 and 8, but not quite as well with y11.
- Find some good resources to introduce students to (general science and chem). What resources do Fintona have that I didn't notice? I know their slogan is 'technology doesn't teach students, teachers do', but I'm sure they must have more tech. than I noticed!
After the tute, there was around half an hour to kill....one of the sessions was cancelled (the discussion group on the course) and it was too late to gate crash general science. Time to catch up some more with Kate, since we didn't finish our yammer in chem tute ;-)
OK - next session with Eryn O'Mahony
IT in science - WOW! This was really really great. Unfortunately, I haven't found the promised presentation on blackboard yet, that contains the wonderful links to websites, and overview of what was talked about. The key technology that I thought I would use well, was:
- webcam/stillcam/200x microscope-cam attachment to the p.c. What a versatile tool, that I can see having so many applications within the science classroom. If the school doesn't have one that I go to, I'm going to have to buy one myself. It's that good.
- Wiki - duh! Why didn't I think of that? I'm on the 'net all the time, but setting up a Wiki for my students to chat to each other about a topic, with me (teacher) moderating is such a beautiful use of an often maligned technology that I simply never thought about before.
- The pH meters were good - I wonder how many schools have these.
- Inspiration looked like a nice piece of software, but really just reminded me of html web links. If the school I go to doesn't have it, that's what I could do to create more interactive presentations. It looked useful for 'mind mapping'.
- PodCasts. A while ago I thought podcasts could be a great way to give students prac. instructions in science, but since the girls at Fintona don't have the mp3 players, I can't test it out. I still think this has potential. e.g. for a dissection.
- I loved the photostory idea - get students to think of the process as much as the endgame. In a way, that's what this journal is doing too (I wonder if everyone's actually doing it each week....).
- Other things to look at, that were mentioned in the presentation include:
-Learning Federation Software (www.thelearningfederation.edu.au)
-SEAR (good for writing assessments)
- The science continuum (already mentioned in lectures)
- http://del.icio.us/
- mbarlow blog (gross science)
- Tain Lab (data logging device) cost
- pH probe cost (around $30??) - for anyone reading the blog that wants Eryn's email for the genetics/electrophoresis presentation, she wrote it up as being omahonye@colomba.vic.edu.au.
A really good chance to debrief on the assignment and discuss misconceptions with other students. We hadn't really done this properly before, so I found it really great to hear other people's experiences and the misconceptions they identified. As usual, I talk too much - I hope nobody minds (it's coming to something when one of the students in the Chem tute said "Oh you're Meredith" - hmmmmm). I hope the other students all agree to put their assignment 2a up on blackboard, b/c I know how long it took me to research acids and bases, and the thoughts of doing that over and over and over every time I teach a new topic is, well, actually just not possible & I'll resort to the high level stuff on that handout from a few weeks back. Sharing info would be great (it worked well in Maths last year).
BTW - thanks to the student who passed on the link for making a $100 interactive whiteboard (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/) with a Wii remote, bluetooth, laptop and IR pen. I'll be doing this over the holidays for fun (my kids have a Wii so I'll borrow one of their remotes...even better!).
The extension on the assignment was a welcome relief, btw. It had been a busy few weeks, and it gave me a couple of night's peace before it was due :-) It occurred to me that there was a huge similarity between the assignment for EDF4113 and EDF4004 (make up 2 lesson plans in our specialism area). I wonder if anyone actually copied their assignment from one unit to the other? It would seem possible to me for both units to combine forces, and review the same lesson plans, each with a different focus (4004 for assessment procedures, 4113 for science education rigor and misconception busting). It might be a bit difficult to coordinate though....
That's all for now folks.
See you next time!
Sunday, April 6, 2008
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:
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...
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
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:
- Hole closed for yellow flame
- Light bunsen burner on yellow
- Match, then tap
- Only 3 matches in box (or they'll light them all!!)
- Teacher talk = yellow flame
- When away from desk, students must turn off bunsen burner
- Blue flame (hole open = more oxygen) for working
- Don't put the bottom of the test tube straight into the hottest part of the blue flame or it'll explode.
- Always have the test tube facing AWAY from faces
- Always have safety gear on (goggles, some schools have lab coats)
- 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.
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.
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....
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....
Sunday, March 16, 2008
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
Thursday, March 13, 2008
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...
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...
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
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.
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...
- 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.
- 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... - 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 :-)
- 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.
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
