What Makes an Effective Science Lesson Final

of 20

What Makes an Effective Science Lesson

A suitable metric for effectiveness

Given the totality of their influence, it is unsurprising that the concept of an effective lesson for England

and Wales is defined by Ofsted. The statutory responsibilities entailed in the national curriculum that

Ofsted enforce mean that classroom teachers take particular note of their views (Hussain, 2012) and the

competitive nature of school performance tables, which are characterised by the Ofsted rating, ensure

management within schools focus particularly on their criteria for success (Perryman, Ball, Maguire &

Braun, 2011). Consequently, my understanding of what determines an effective science lesson will utilise

the guidance given by Ofsted as a working definition.

Ofsted inspectors are the judges of “overall effectiveness” (Ofsted, 2015, p. 33) and are primarily

evaluating how the school and teaching responds to, “individual needs by observing how well it helps all

[emphasis added] pupils to make progress and fulfil their potential” (Ofsted, 2015, p. 34). As such,

judging a lesson as effective means that all learners make progress and reach their potential. In general,

however, girls’ attainment in all science courses at KS4 is greater than that of boys. This fluctuates from

one percentage point, when girls undertake separate sciences, to 14 percent points in GCSE additional

applied science when compared to boys’ attainment (Ofsted, 2013a). Notably, the proportion of girls

undertaking separate science GCSEs has increased since 2005 from 41-45% to 50% in 2014 (DoE, 2016).

If we categorise all students progressing and fulfilling their potential as effective; on a gender binary

between girls and boys it would seem from the data presented that science education has been successful

in increasing participation and attainment of girls. Therefore, greater emphasis should be added to helping

boys within science education. Yet subject choice at A-level, which has a greater influence on earning

power than GCSE attainment (Dolton & Vignoles, 2002), show that girls only make up 20% of students

progressing on to A-level physics (IoP, 2013). The figures for girls choosing to progress to A-levels in

Chemistry and Biology is 9.4% and 13.8% respectively (Ofsted, 2013b). Although girls’ attainment at

GCSE science is greater than that of boys, we can see that earning potential, which is increased by

undertaking further studies in the science, is lessened due girls’ subject choices past KS4. Therefore, one

could argue that an acceptable metric to measure the effectiveness of a science lesson should ultimately

be on the uptake of girls in further studies of science so they can “fulfil their potential” (Ofsted, 2015, p.

34). Furthermore, Ofsted priorities the development of confidence for learners within and without the

learning environment specifying a focus on ‘personal development, behaviour and welfare’ (2016, p.14).

Consequently, responding to the continued gender disparity in terms of employment in the sciences after

school requires attendance to the personal development needs of girls from within the classroom.

of 20

Objections and Critiques

Several objections may be levelled at this choice of metric. The age of which students choose what

options they want to take at further study can be as early as primary education age (Maltese & Tai, 2010).

This can be partly explained by societal prejudices and attitudes towards certain gender norms related to

occupation choice (IoP, 2015), which in turn may be a major factor that depresses the number of girls

taking science in further education. It may seem that this is a fair criticism as such societal prejudices —

which are formed early in a child’s development — are outside the control of a science educator in

secondary school. Yet studies which employ longitudinal methodologies have shown that the majority of

students do not make such decisions at such an early age (Homer & Ryder, 2014). Cleaves (2005) showed

that only 20% of students which undertake further science study had a clear intention of doing so at Y9.

Another study (Tai, Qi Liu, Maltese & Fan, 2006) showed that out of those with a STEM degree by the

age of 25 only 17% had an intension of doing so at Y8. Therefore, from the evidence it is clear that

classroom lessons at KS3/4 play a role in determining choice of further study.

A further criticism may be levelled at this choice of metric from a pragmatic viewpoint. This report will

include a small case study of only several lessons from one class. Therefore, due to time constraints upon

this work it is impossible to measure against this metric what impact the chosen teaching pedagogy has

had. Although this might seem like the strongest objection against my chosen metric of effectiveness,

any metric of effectiveness would also be open to similar contentions with such a small sample of lessons.

Coe et al. (2014) argue that effectiveness of teaching and learning can only be measured by the impact

upon the students’ outcomes which can be verified. In short, quantitative assessment. This inherently

implies formal summative assessments or longitudinal studies which cannot be administered during the

period of the case study. Thus, any metric of effectiveness chosen would not fulfil a meaningful

quantitative test. Therefore, there will have to be qualitative methods utilized which do not directly equate

to Coe et al.’s idea of a suitable metric but which would hope to correspond ultimately to student

outcomes which can be verified.

Before I outline these qualitative techniques it would be best to visit the pedagogical research to inform

the choice of desirable qualitative learning outcomes that would eventually correspond to increasing more

girls taking science post KS4.

Gendered learning

Many investigative studies have been carried out which empirically show that boys and girls have differing

approaches to learning (Zohar & Sela, 2003) and learning styles (Jones, Howe & Rua, 2000). The evidence

of 20

shows that in general girls are “more relational and cooperative and less competitive than boys” (Brotman

& Moore, 2007, p. 1).

It has been shown that female students feel more comfortable in practical lessons rather than lessons

which are dominated with transmission teaching (Takruri-Rizk, Jensen & Booth, 2008). Feeling

comfortable is the foundation of productive learning (Maslow, 1943) for all students yet this is more

acute for girls as they suffer a large degradation of confidence in their abilities during adolescence with

only 29 percent of high school girls having confidence in their ability compared to 49% of boys (Kommer,

2006).

The Institute of Physics (2006, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015) have completed research into how classroom

teachers can produce an effective, secure learning environment to support girls. Their suggestions are

inline with those of De la Paz (2012, p. 9) who suggests:

• Encourage young girls to ask questions about the world, to problem solve, and to use natural

creativity through play, creativity, and experimentation.

• Foster girls' internal assets such as confidence, self-esteem, initiative, and a work ethic.

• Show girls that what they want out of their careers can be achieved through STEM.

• Recognise that many girls prefer working in groups and collaborating with others to solve

problems.

To address these points raised by De la Paz I will visit Vygotsky’s (1978) theory for development of

cognition as this stresses the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of comprehension.

This will allow me to develop and synthesize Osbourne’s (2014) view that science educators should

facilitate learning through problem solving through creativity and questioning of the natural world rather

than teaching as if science is a fixed dogma of facts to learn. This will allow for collaborative learning

which should allow the students to increase their self-esteem and meet Ofsted requirement of fostering

personal development in the classroom (Ofsted, 2016). Many girls feel that science is generally a ‘boys’

subject suggesting they feel that careers in STEM cannot be achieved (Tanggaard, 2006). Therefore, I will

visit the Growth Mindset outlined by Dweck (2012) and Brookfield’s (1995) view of teaching so as to

expand critical thought which is inline with the Ofsted (2013a) view to harbour curiosity and critical

thought about the natural world.

of 20

Social interactions, Development and Critical Thought

Vygotsky (1978) contends that community and social interactions play the central role in cognitive

development. Vygotsky argues that "learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of

developing culturally organised, specifically human psychological function" (1978, p. 90). That being,

social development is a precursor to cognitive development. This stresses that learning is best attained

through collaboration and inquiry with peers. This is in contrast to Piaget’s (1958) idea of ‘Theory of

Cognitive Development’ where development is though a universal stage theory of cognitive development

which are necessary to travel though. Vygotsky’s view of social learning and development is therefore

more tied with being able to allow girls to foster confidence, self-esteem and work-ethic though inquiry

with peers. It can be understood from a view point of “Combined and Uneven Development” (Trotsky,

2007, p. 42) that development of society, and by extension the individuals in the classroom, will differ

from student to student and therefore through discussion and challenging ideas will lead to a more

harmonious development.

The use of communication in pedagogical research, especially science teaching, is highlighted in the works

of Osbourne (2014), Newman (1999) and Rotheram (2014). Osbourne highlights how social interaction

within the development of science is rarely taught and science education is seen as a, “dogma, a set of

unequivocal, uncontested and unquestioned facts” (Osbourne, 2014, p. 54). This attitude to science is in

direct opposition to fostering a creative, problem solving attitude to science education which would

increase girls’ participation and achievement. Osbourne argues that, “questioning is a process that

supports learning by helping to engender cognitive dissonance” (Osbourne, 2014, p.55) which would

fulfil Ofsted's criterium for increased attention to personal development, behaviour and welfare (2016,

p.14). Newman (1999) makes a clear distinction between the Transmission model of teaching — teacher

led, lecturing style — and the Constructive model that sees the position of the teacher as a facilitator for

the students to discover and argue with peers about natural phenomena. The development of

conversation, peer discussion, and analysis is far more common in humanity subjects (Bramley, Rodeiro

& Vitello, 2015) which girls in particular opt for after KS4 (Ofsted, 2013b). Therefore, developing the

pedagogical approaches of Osbourne, Newman, Rotheram and Vygotsky within the teaching practice of

science means addressing the challenges outlined by De la Paz and the IoP.

Growth Mindset and Critical Reflection

Carol Dweck’s development of the Growth Mindset was based upon empirical research that showed

people’s personal beliefs about themselves had a powerful impact upon attainment and choices (Dweck,

2000). Her research showed that students who had high self confidence and believed that intelligence

of 20

was not innate but learnt through challenging oneself had far greater attainment levels and self-esteem.

This is in contrast to the Fixed Mindset that Dweck (2012) characterised as the belief that intelligence is

genetically ascribed. The idea of the Growth Mindset is aligned with increasing girls’ self confidence and

development of challenge and creative thought. Creativity and believing that challenging work is

productive are, “skills young people should be encouraged to develop through formal education”

(Manning, Glackin & Dillon, 2009, p. 53), that in turn would address concerns with girls’ low-esteem and

creativity characterised by the IoP and De la Paz reports on increasing girls’ attainment in sciences post

KS4.

Brookfield (1995, p1) argues that the key task for education is to “change the world” and to progressively

develop society. Brookfield’s model of reflection is pertinent to enabling girls within the classroom to

develop to fulfil their full potential. Brookfield proposes four methods, or lens, which a teacher can use

to reflect to become a critical educator. I have chosen Brookfield’s lens of reflection through “our

students’ eyes” (Brookfield, 1995, p. 30) as one method of reflection for my short course of lessons I will

deliver. When applying Brookfield’s lens of the student it ensures that we need to be prepared to listen

to what they have to say or to consider the learning process from their perspective (Trevitt, 1995). This

method posits that as a critical teacher your practice will be one of a facilitator as girls benefit from group

discussions more so than from Transmission teaching. Also, being mindful of the perspective of the girls

in the classroom will ensure that you highlight the role women have played within the development of

science. This will show them that women can succeed in science which is an important point highlighted

by the IoP (2015).

Case Study

Composition of the Class

The class chosen for this case study was a mixed ability year 7 class with an equal number of female and

male students numbering 30 in total. With regards to its student population, the school is ‘much larger-

than-average, the number of boys and girls is approximately equal, and it has a lower proportion of

students for whom the school receives the pupil premium than found nationally’ (Ofsted, 2013c). In both

lessons under reflection here, the students were undertaking content outlined in Science Programmes of Study:

Key Stage 3 (DoE, 2013a). The lesson plans for these lessons can be found in Appendix A and Appendix

B.

of 20

Effective Measure

As outlined above, there cannot be any meaningful quantitative metric employed during this case study

which would signify increased attainment post KS4, due to its scope. Therefore, the choice of utilizing

Brookfield’s (1995) reflective lens model forces the educator to consider the student’s perspective

concretely. The explicit nature of Brookfield’s approach is the reason for employing this method in

counterpoise to using Gibbs’ (1988) and Kolb’s (1984) methodology where consideration of the students’

views is not compulsory. Indeed, Brookfield’s method can be argued to be the best barometer to the

confidence and self-esteem that the students possess – which are vital aspects to increasing participation

in science post KS4 for girls, and are why Ofsted (2012) emphasise these aspects in their statutory reports

on schools.

A questionnaire to gauge the students’ view prior and after the short sequence of lessons would have

been a fitting exercise if one was focused on quantitative assessment as a metric. However, this form of

assessment was judged by myself and the classroom teacher to be inappropriate if commenced in the

lesson due to a lack of time, consequential to the practical components of the lesson. We also deemed a

questionnaire unsuitable as homework as there was already an appropriate homework set which would

consolidate the students’ learning and allow them to research scientific careers related to their interests.

As such, the students’ view was gauged through questioning during the practical component of the

lessons and through the increase of knowledge in careers related to the scientific field.

Autobiography View and Theoretical Perspectives

It was my purpose in these lessons to ensure that all students, specifically the female students, were

engaged with the course material. By employing a dynamic use of of questioning, peer discussion,

community and social interaction, science as a mode of discovery, and examples of jobs within the

scientific community, it was hoped to increase participation of women post-KS4 as these are seen to

increase girls’ self-esteem and confidence in science as outlined in the literature above, especially by De

la Paz (2012).

It is my view that the lessons were well planned with clear aims and occasions to review progress of the

students towards those aims which are conditions set in the Teachers’ Standards 4 & 6 (DoE, 2013b). An

ethos of team work and social interaction was embedded in the lessons through the use of time for

partner discussion before student feedback to the class and the demand in the practical exercises to work

as a team to discover previously unknown knowledge. This ensured that I met Osborne’s (2014) view

that science should not be taught as a set of unequivocal facts which are predetermined, Takruri-Rizk et

of 20

al.’s (2008) conception of engaging students through discovery in contrast to Transmission teaching, and

Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of learning though community and social interaction.

I utilised the starter of the first lesson in order to assess the pupils’ initial understanding of what careers

exist in relation to the sciences and the scientific community. To further the students understanding I

embedded jobs related science in both lessons and set a related research task as homework. This was

done in order to meet the suggestions of the IoP (2015). A number of students found the starter initially

inaccessible as it heavily relied on prior knowledge which may not have been taught in school. This was

overcome in part though partner discussion yet I did not see this as a major barrier to learning. Through

employing Dweck’s (2012) growth mindset I ensured there was time for the students to review what they

had learned from their research task homework and compared this to their initial knowledge. The aim of

this exercise was to increase the self-esteem and confidence of the students who found the work initially

inaccessible as I demonstrated their progress and explained that it was progress made which is important,

not your initial starting point.

Highlighting the practicality of science to the students’ everyday lives featured heavily within both lessons.

This was done in part though showing a short video from a leading female employee from the Food

Standards Agency on the ‘horse meat scandal’, relating acids and alkalis to household items, and role-

playing testing for food poisoning in soup from a nefarious manufacturer in Sheffield. I thought these

aspects of the lessons went extremely well as there was a noted increase in participation from students,

particularly the female students, who had previously been less engaged. I believe this is because I

deliberately chose non-traditional gender specific examples as highlighted as good practice by the IoP

(2015).

A successful questioning technique can take many forms; open, closed, directed, and indirect are but a

few ways that questions are used to great effect. A students’ genuine inquisitive question for

understanding which may fall outside the scope of the curriculum – or at best be tangential to it – are

hard to invoke from a teacher’s perspective, unless the students are fully engaged. The creativity,

confidence and self-esteem required for students to ask these questions has to be of a high level

(Anderson et al., 2001) and are highlighted by the IoP (2012, 2013) and De la Paz (2012) as a way to

further engage with female students to allow them to further develop a genuine interest in science. In

my lessons I did experience several inquisitive questions specifically related to the ‘horse meat scandal’

and acidity of household items. Unfortunately, due to time constraints imposed on the lesson, and in one

case lack of knowledge on my behalf, I was unable to fully engage with these questions. This was a failure

in my practice as I could have ensured that I made a note of these questions, provide the answers to the

students the next lesson through a written means (to ensure that I can progress with the set lessons

of 20

material), and explain to the student when I am free to discuss further if they wish. Alternatively, and in

fitting with the desired outcomes of this study, I could have asked the student to find out the answer to

their own question, further increasing independence, confidence and the desire to engage with science

beyond the classroom.

Fellow Professionals’ View

I reflected upon the delivered lessons with the classroom teacher at our weekly arranged mentor meeting.

Not reviewing the lessons immediately was not a conscious choice but imposed due to our timetables.

Even though this arrangement was imposed it had its merits as I was forced to document my feelings to

ensure that I could remember them. This impetus allowed me to reflect at a deeper level than I would

usually do, thus provided for a richer reflective process.

My mentor is currently developing a coaching approach to their practice which facilitates, in Griffiths’

view (2005), a process of unlocking and maximizing a person’s potential. This method of coaching, as

opposed to a hierarchal structural view of mentoring, help students “to learn rather than teaching them”

(Whitmore, 2002, p. 8) which is inline with Takruri-Rizk et al.’s (2008) approach to increasing confidence

in students’ abilities as outlined earlier. This approach to mentoring has allowed myself to become a self-

critical learner yet does not lend its self directly to Brookfield’s method for reflection as explicit feedback

of how my mentor saw the outcomes of the lesson were limited.

Direct feedback of the lessons stated that the lessons were, “good, well paced, suitably differentiated, and

there was an atmosphere created that was positive and supportive.” From this view I believe I fulfilled

the criteria for increasing confidence of all students and hence female students also.

Logistics concerning groupings within the practical work portion of the lessons were noted to be a point

of improvement. I elected to have the students chose their own groups for the practical work in the

belief that this would allow the students, particular the female students, to feel comfortable in their

learning environment. This posed certain problems which had previously not been considered. For

example, the time taken for the students to self-arrange was not considered by myself in the first lesson

and thus introduced additional time pressures upon the activities which could have been mitigated if prior

arrangements had been made. In the second lesson’s practical I tried to circumvent the same problem by

stating that the students should be in the same groups as the previous week. This created additional

problems due to friendship groups being extremely flexible, absentee students between the two lessons,

and lack of recall of which groups they had been in previously.

of 20

Upon reflection of this part of the lesson, myself and the mentor concluded that the intension of creating

a comfortable learning environment through self-elected groups is good practice. Yet conditions, such as

classroom dynamics, age, and maturity of the class, are considerations which could mean that imposed

groupings could foster a comfortable learning environment more effectively as outside classroom

conflicts can be sidestepped or negated in part.

Students’ View

Explicit discussions with students in the lesson about what they enjoy are limited due to many factors.

Anecdotally, it is stated by teachers that there are acute time constraints imposed due to the volume of

material to cover in the science curriculum and therefore time for student feedback is limited. There is

also evidence (Bjork, Dunlosky & Kornell, 2013) that points to learners not being the best judges of their

own learning. This enforces the common hierarchical prejudice (Snellman & Ekehammar, 2005) in

society — which reflects itself in the dichotomy of teacher and student — which serves to undermine

the importance of student feedback. It is my belief that consideration of the students’ view is integral to

ensuring that effective learning takes place. Therefore, although I am guarded against failing into the

hierarchical prejudice trap, it is harder to not prioritise gauging students’ views explicitly in the lesson due

to time constraints I self-impose.

Nonetheless, explicitly asking the students is not the only way to understand if the students are enjoying

the lesson (Reeve, 2012). Increased participation and engagement in tasks, excitement when entering the

classroom, tangential questions and the lack of low level behavioral disturbances can be ways of gauging

the students’ view albeit not in an explicitly measurable way. In both lessons there was a marked decrease

in low level behavioral disturbances and an increase in questioning from the students. In the preceding

lessons from the case study there was also a noticeable drop in engagement when the students realised

that there was not going to be a practical component to the lesson. Therefore, the students view of these

lessons was positive. They enjoyed the lessons which is a precursor to continuing studies in later life.

Summary

Ultimately, I found the exercise of focusing on one particular subset of students to increase their

participation post-KS4 very instructive to my teaching practice. It allowed me to understand certain

challenges facing science educators which I previously had limited knowledge of. It forced me to develop

teaching tools such as being a facilitator of learning, learning though creativity, and developing the non-

dogmatic view of science in students. Although I had a previous prejudice for these tools and practices I

had not consciously adopted these in my practice prior to the case study.

of 20

The use of Brookfield (1995) as a reflective model had its challenges as I felt there was an aspect of

artificially separating the different lenses. For example, the autobiography (my view) lens felt devoid of

content before I married this view with that of a theoretical lens and I found it almost impossible to

separate how I felt about the effectiveness of the lessons from the feedback that I obtained verbally from

the students’ during the lesson. In the future, it would be instructive to write more fluidly within the four

lenses ensuring that I take all of the perspectives into account without the rigidity of considering them

discreetly.

Word count: 4158

of 20

References

Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R.,

Raths, J., Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Bjork, R.A, Dunlosky, J. & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and

Illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417-444.

Bramley, T., Vidal Rodeiro, C.L., & Vitello, S. (2015). Gender differences in GCSE. Cambridge

Assessment Research Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment.

Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brotman, J.S. & Moore, F.M. (2008). Girls and Science: A Review of Four Themes in the Science

Education Literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971-1002.

Cleaves, A. (2005). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of

Science Education, 27(4), 471-486.

Coe, R. Aloisi, C. Higgins, S. & Major, L.M. (2014). What makes great teaching? Review of the

underpinning research. Sutton Trust. Retrieved from

http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/great-teaching.

De La Paz, K. (2012). Girls in STEM: Unlocking Potential. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72, 9-

10.

Department of Education - DoE. (2016). National Pupil Database. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518368/NPD_

Data_Sources_by_Year.xlsx.

Department of Education - DoE. (2014). The National Curriculum. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381754/SECO

NDARY_national_curriculum.pdf.

of 20

Department of Education - DoE. (2013a). Science programmes of study: key stage 3. National curriculum in

England. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/335174/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Science_220714.pdf

Department of Education - DoE. (2013b). Teachers’ Standards. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/

government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283566/Teachers_standard_informati

on.pdf

Dolton, P.J. & Vignoles, A. (2002). The return on post–compulsory school mathematics study.

Economica, 69 (273), 113-142.

Dweck, C.S. (2012). Mindset. Cambridge: Constable & Robinson.

Dweck, C.S. (2000). Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Philadelphia:

Taylor & Francis Group.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Further Education

Unit. Oxford Polytechnic: Oxford.

Griffiths, K. (2005). Personal coaching: A model for effective learning. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 55-

65.

Homer, M. & Ryder, J. (2014). Twenty First Century Science and progression to science. Nuffield

Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/twenty-first-century-science-and-

progression-science-levels.

Hussain, I. (2012). School inspections: can we trust Ofsted reports? CentrePiece, 16(3), 10-13.

Institute of Physics - IoP. (2015). Opening Doors: A guide to good practice in countering gender stereotyping in

schools. Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/reports-and-

research/opening-doors/page_66438.html.

Institute of Physics - IoP. (2013). Closing Doors: Exploring gender and subject choice in schools. Retrieved

from http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2013/closingdoors/.

of 20

Institute of Physics - IoP. (2012). It’s Different for Girls: The influence of schools. Retrieved from

http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/different/page_61620.html.

Institute of Physics - IoP. (2009). Girls into Physics: Action Research. Retrieved from

http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/action_research/page_41736.html.

Institute of Physics - IoP. (2006). Girls in the Physics Classroom: A review of the research on girls’

participation in physics. Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics

/review/page_41597.html.

Jones, M.G., Howe, A., & Rua, M.J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests,

and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180–192.

Kolb, D.A., (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kommer, D. (2006). Boys and Girls Together: A Case for Creating Gender- Friendly Middle

School Classrooms, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, 79(6), 247-251.

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of early interest in science.

International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669-685.

Manning, A. Glackin, M. & Dillon, J. (2009). Creative science lessons? Prospective teachers reflect

on good practice. School Science Review, 90(332), 53-58.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50, 370-396. Retrieved

from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

Newman, D. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International

Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.

Ofsted. (2016). The common inspection framework: education, skills and early years. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461767/The_c

ommon_inspection_framework_education_skills_and_early_years.pdf.

of 20

Ofsted. (2015). School inspection handbook. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/

uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457199/School_inspection_handbook.pdf.

Ofsted. (2013a). Maintaining curiosity: A survey into science education in schools. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/379164/Mainta

ining_20curiosity_20a_20survey_20into_20science_20education_20in_20schools.pdf.

Ofsted. (2013b). A-level subject take-up: Numbers and proportions of girls and boys studying A-level subjects in

England. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/426646/A_level_subject_take-up.pdf.

Ofsted. (2013c). School report: High Storrs School. Retrieved from https://www.google.co.uk/url?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiKkq7JqYXRAhUXMlAKHUmgD

r8QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Freports.ofsted.gov.uk%2Fprovider%2Ffiles%2F2292557%

2Furn%2F107139.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEt-xqTwxSrB3BVeJA2ueXlusr0_A&sig2=rZXXzrscxD87j

ZWRx2lmrg.

Ofsted. (2012). Learner View: helping learners have a voice. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/

government/news/learner-view-helping-learners-have-a-voice.

Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching critical thinking? New directions in science education. School Science

Review number, 352, 53-62.

Perryman, J. Ball, S. Maguire, M. & Braun, A. (2011). Life in the Pressure Cooker – School League

Tables and English and Mathematics Teachers’ Responses to Accountability in a Results-Driven

Era. British Journal Of Educational Studies, 59(2), 179-195.

Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. AMC, 10(12).

Snellman, A. & Ekehammar, B. (2005). Ethnic Hierarchies, Ethnic Prejudice, and Social Dominance

Orientation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15(1), 83–94.

Reeve, J. (2012). A Self-determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement. In Christenson,

S.L., Reschly, A.L. & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (149-172). Boston:

Springer.

of 20

Rotheram, K. (2014). The Teaching, Learning and Creativity (TLC) Model for Science. School Science

Review, 95(353), 79-84.

Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Career choice: enhanced: Planning early for

careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143-1144. doi: 10.1126/science.1128690.

Takruri-Rizk, H. Jensen, K. & Booth, K. (2008). Gendered learning experience of engineering and

technology students. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 38(1), 40-52.

DOI=http://dx.doi.org.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/10.1145/1361255.1361257.

Tanggaard, L. (2006). Situating gendered learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning,

18(4), 220 - 234.

Trevitt, C. (2007). What is critically reflective teaching? Oxford: University of Oxford. Retrieved from

https://www.learning.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwadminoxacuk/localsites/oxfordlearninginstitute

/documents/supportresources/lecturersteachingstaff/resources/resources/CriticallyReflectiveTeac

hing.pdf.

Trotsky, L. (2007). The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects. Seattle: IMG Publications.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Whitmore, J. (2002). Coaching for Performance. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Zohar, A., & Sela, D. (2003). Her physics, his physics: Gender issues in Israeli advanced placement

physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 245–268.

of 20

Appendix A

TeacherName:S.Shaw&E.Padmore

Subject:Science

Day/Date:30/11/16

Group:7MEX

Period:P1

No.ingroup:30

THEBIGPICTUREFoodandDigestion

CURRENTTARGETSToensurethatallstudents(specificallythefemalestudents)areengagedwiththecoursematerialthroughuseofquestioning,peerdiscussion,communityandsocialinteraction,andexamplesofjobswithinthescientificcommunity.

LESSONAIM:Whatisyourkey/enquiryquestion?

• Tointroducethenotionthattherearevariedjobswithinthescientificcommunity.• Workingscientificallyandsafelyinpracticalwork.• Tointroducetheconceptthat,onecanconducttestsonfoodtoknowwhatitiscomprisedof.• Tointroducetheimpactsthatthescientificcommunityhasuponfoodstandards.

LEARNINGOUTCOMES:(levelsand/orall/most/some)1. Allstudentswillbeabletodemonstratetheyknowonejobrelatedtoscience.2. Allstudentswillbeabletosaythatwecantestfoodstoseewhatitismadefrom.3. Allstudentswillbeabletohighlightcorrectprotectiveequipmentneededtowork

safelyinthispractical.4. Moststudentswillbeabletodemonstrateworkingscientificallyinthepractical

componentofthelesson.5. Moststudentswillbeabletoverballyexplaintheimportanceoffoodtestsandthe

foodstandardsagency.6. Somestudentswillbeabletocriticallyself-reflectupontheirpracticalworkthrough

wellstructuredwrittenlanguage.

KEYWORDS:StarchProteinGlucoseSafetyFoodstandards

RESOURCESREQUIREDFoodandDigestionPowerPointFoodandDigestionWS(x32)FoodandDigestionDifferentiatedWS(x5)Whiteboardsandmarkerpens(x30)SouppracticalmaterialsoutlinedintheHighStorrspracticalhandbook.

LINKSTOPROGRAMMEOFSTUDYKS3–BlockoneforY7students

of 20

Time:8:55-9:009:00-9:039:03-9:059:05-9:10

STARTStarter:TitleandDateinyourbooks.Writedownasmanyjobsthatyouknowthathavetodowithsciencethatyouknowinyourbooks.Picturesofpeopledoing‘scientific’jobsontheboardforscaffoldingoflearningtohelpdifferentiationandtoensurethatallstudentshaveatleastoneconceptintheirbookstobuildupconfidenceofthestudents.Drawalineunderyourworkandcloseyourbooks.Nowdiscusswithyourpartnernexttoyoufortwominuteswhatjobsyouhaddownandhowyouknewaboutthatsortofjob.Openyourbooksandwritedownadditionaljobsthatyoumaynothavethoughof.Oneminutetowriteonthewhiteboardonejobinsciencethatyouaremostinterestedin.Whiteboardsusedtoensurethatallstudentsareengagedinthelesson.Closedquestioningofjobsonthewhiteboardsanswers.Questioningusedtofosterpeerdiscussionandpingpongingofideas.Thewhiteboardsareusedsotheclassroomteachercanseesimilarjobsandaskthestudentsiftheyhadheardconsideredvariousdifferingjobs.

WhichLOisaddressed?1Thisisassessedthoughmarkingofbooks,useofwhiteboardsandopenandclosedquestioningfromtheclassroomteacher.

9:10-9:129:12-9:179:17-9:209:20-9:239:23-9:439:43-9:50

MIDDLE(LearningActivities)Practicalintroduction:Foodpoising:Soupisnotsoup-er!Introductionofroleplay(fromtheclassroomteacher)thattherehasbeenaseriousoutbreakoffoodpoisoninginSheffield(Northofthecityistheybecomeconcernedfortheirownsafety)fromsoupthathastracesofproteinpresentExplanationfromtheclassroomteacherofthethreedifferentfoodteststhattheywillbeusingtodeterminewhatsouphasproteinpresent.Workingsafely:Givethestudentsoneminutetodiscusswhattheywillneedtodotoensurethattheyareworkingsafelyduringthepractical.Informstudentsthattheywillbeaskedatrandomtoensurethatallstudentsareengaged.Workingscientifically:Givethestudentsoneminutetodiscusswhattheywillneedtodotoensurethattheyareworkingscientificallyduringthepractical.Informstudentsthattheywillbeaskedatrandomtoensurethatallstudentsareengaged.ClassroomteacherwillhighlightthisisnotaracebutweneedtoworktogethertoensurethatwegetthecorrectresultstosavethechildrenofSheffieldfromfoodpoisoning!Practical:Informthestudentsthattheyhavetoworkinmaingroupsof6.Thesegroupswillthenbesplitintoworkingpairs.Thepairswillconductonetestsoneachsoupandcollaboratewiththeirfindingsintheirmaingroup.Thiswillalsointroducetheconceptofscienceworkinginacommunityandscienceasamethodofdiscovery.Theintroductionoffeedingbackresultstoagroupwillalsomotivatethestudentsnottolettheirteamdownwithoutitbeingacompetitiveatmosphere.Results:Studentsaretoldtoensurethattheirresultsareintheirbooks.Theyaregiventheworkingscientificcriteriawhichtheclassposedearlierinthelessontowriteasentenceonwhatwentwell(WWW)andevenbetterif(EBI)

2,5343,46

of 20

9:50-9:549:54-9:55

END(Plenary)Industryfoodtesting:ShortvideoofwomenfromfoodstandardsagencyonthehorsemeetscandalinTescoburgers.Thisshouldhighlighttheimportanceofjobswithinthescientificcommunitywhichthestudentswereunawareofbefore.Homework:Informthestudentsthattheywillhaveahomeworkdueinthenextlessonwhichwillbeemailedtothemtoday.

3

DIFFERENTIATIONWhatprovisionhasbeenmadeinthelessonfordifferentiation?Questioningisdifferentiated.WorksheetshandedoutlevelledtoabilityScaffoldingthroughpicturesonthePowerPointSeatingplanallowspairingofstudentswithdifferingabilitiestohelpeachother.Writtentextontheboardarekepttolimited,yetwellstructured,language.Useofpracticalworkforkinestheticlearners.

SUPPORTWhichindividualsneedparticularsupportandhowwillitbegiven?HowwillTAsbeused?TAwillbesendPowerPointpresentationandworksheetspriortothelesson.WhenapracticalistakingplacetheTAwillbeinformedandsentinformationpriortothelesson.StudentNBwillbeusedasastudentteachertohelpABinthepracticalsession.

HOMEWORK:Researchfivedifferingspecificjobswithinthescientificcommunitywhichyouareinterestedin.Thisneedstobepresentedinyourbookswithanexampleofwhereyoufoundthisinformation.Forexample:Iaminterestedinfood.TherearejobsintheFoodStandardsAgencywhichusesciencetotestwhatatypeoffoodismadefrom.IfoundthisinformationfromtheFoodStandardsAgencywebsite.Deadline:Nextweekslesson.Monday5thDecember(5/12/16)period1.Studentswithnohomework:N/A

of 20

Appendix B

TeacherName:S.Shaw&E.Padmore

Subject:Science

Day/Date:5/12/16

Group:7MEX

Period:P1

No.ingroup:30

THEBIGPICTUREAcidsandAlkalineSubstances

CURRENTTARGETSToensurethatallstudents(specificallythefemalestudents)areengagedwiththecoursematerialthroughuseofquestioning,peerdiscussion,communityandsocialinteraction,andexamplesofjobswithinthescientificcommunity.

LESSONAIM:Whatisyourkey/enquiryquestion?

• Toemphasizethenotionthattherearevariedjobswithinthescientificcommunity.• Workingscientificallyandsafelyinpracticalwork.• Tointroducetheconceptthat,onecancategorizedifferentmaterialsintoacidsandalkalis.

LEARNINGOUTCOMES:(levelsand/orall/most/some)

1. Allstudentswillbeabletonameonehouseholdacid2. Allstudentswillbeabletonameonehouseholdalkali3. Allstudentswillbeabletoworksafelyduringthepractical4. Moststudentswillbeabletonameajobrelatedtoscienceandhealth5. Somestudentswillbeabletoengageinadiscussionondifferingexperimental

results.

KEYWORDS:AcidAlkalineAlkali

RESOURCESREQUIREDAcidsandAlkalinePowerPointAcidsandAlkalineWS(x32)AcidsandAlkalineDifferentiatedWS(x5)Whiteboardsandmarkerpens(x30)AcidsandAlkalinematerialsoutlinedintheHighStorrspracticalhandbook.

LINKSTOPROGRAMMEOFSTUDYKS3–BlockoneforY7students

Time:8:55-9:00

STARTStarter:TitleandDateinyourbooks.Collectionofhomework’s:Askstudentstogetouttheirhomeworkandtheclassroomteacherwillcollectthem.

WhichLOisaddressed?

of 20

9:00-9:109:10-9:189:18-9:259:25-9:289:28-9:339:33-9:50

MIDDLE(LearningActivities)Copydefinitionofacidfromtheboard.Householdacids:Letthestudentshave2minutestothinkofhouseholditemsthatcanalsobecharacterizedasanacid.Afterthe2minutesareoverletthemhavetwofurtherminutetodiscusswiththeirpartnerswhattheythoughtandtowriteadifferenthouseholditemfromtheirpartnerontheirwhiteboards.Reviewofwhatwaswrittenonthewhiteboardsbytheclassroomteacher.Pictureofacidichouseholditemsthatweeat.Householdalkalis:Introductionofhouseholdalkalisfromapicture.Thesehouseholditemsaregenerallyconsideredmoredangerous,suchas,bleachetc.Givethestudents2minutestodiscusswhichtheythinkaremoredangerousandwhy.Informthestudentsthattheywillbebeingaskedatrandomtoensurethatallstudentsareengaged.AcidorAlkali:Askthestudentstowritedownontheirwhiteboardsiftheythinkskin,blood,tears,andtheliquidinourstomachsareacidsoralkalis.Reviewfromthefrontbytheclassroomteacherofthecharacteristicsofskinetc.Medicaljobs:Informationgivenonhowtheaciditylevelsinbloodcanbeasignofillness.Linkthistomedicalphysicsinhospitals,doctorsandnurses.Imageoffemaledoctorandmedicalphysicistwithamalenurse.Workingscientificallyandsafely:Givethestudentstothreeminutestodiscussandwriteontheirwhiteboardsthingstoconsiderwhenworkingscientificallyandsafely.Workingsafelyandscientificallyarehighlightedbytheclassroomteacherfromthestudent’swork.Practical:Usinguniversalindicatortotestanunknownsubstancetodetermineifitisanacidoralkali.

12433

9:50-9:55

END(Plenary)Results:Feedbackfromthestudentsonwhattheydiscovered.Seeiftheresultsdisagreedandhavethestudentsdiscussinpartnerswhytheythinkdifferentstudentsgodifferentresults.Explanationfromtheclassroomteacheronscientistsnotalwaysagreeingandtheimportanceofpeerreview.

5

DIFFERENTIATIONWhatprovisionhasbeenmadeinthelessonfordifferentiation?Questioningisdifferentiated.WorksheetshandedoutlevelledtoabilityScaffoldingthroughpicturesonthePowerPointSeatingplanallowspairingofstudentswithdifferingabilitiestohelpeachother.Writtentextontheboardarekepttolimited,yetwellstructured,language.Useofpracticalworkforkinestheticlearners.

SUPPORTWhichindividualsneedparticularsupportandhowwillitbegiven?HowwillTAsbeused?TAwillbesendPowerPointpresentationandworksheetspriortothelesson.WhenapracticalistakingplacetheTAwillbeinformedandsentinformationpriortothelesson.StudentNBwillbeusedasastudentteachertohelpABinthepracticalsession.

HOMEWORK:Deadline:ThislessonMonday5thDecember(5/12/16)period1.Studentswithnohomework:Markedonthewhiteboardandintheteacher’splanner.

What Makes an Effective Science Lesson Final

Documents

Transcript of What Makes an Effective Science Lesson Final