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!
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
