Following up yesterday’s reflective post, my typed up bullet points of the afternoon sessions. As before, my thanks to the organisers and presenters and a promise that I’ll update these posts with links to the actual presentations in a week or so.
Do They Really Get It session by Niki Kaiser (@chemDrK)
- Session was a development of a post on Niki’s blog.
- Students gave correct answers by imitation, not based on deep understanding, as shown by discussions of ions in a solution vs electrons in a wire; I wonder if the demo showing movement of coloured ions during ‘slow’ electrolysis would help?
- Threshold concepts guide the teacher when choosing what to highlight, what to emphasize in lessons. There should be no going back from the lightbulb moment. If so, why do we need to constantly return to these misconceptions where students rely on folk physics despite explicit refutation work with us?
- It is worth making explicit to students that these are challenging (and often abstract) concepts, and so time to understand them is both normal and expected. In Physics we make this clear with quantum work but perhaps it should be a broader principle.
#rEDRugby my thoughts on @chemDrK‘s “these concepts are hard”: we need to share that with kids so they don’t think it’s them. They’re using brains evolved for arguing about fruit for a totally different task.
— Ian (@teachingofsci) June 9, 2018
- Teachers will do a lot of this already, but we need to be more deliberate in our practice, both for our students and for our own reflection. This is how we improve, and is particularly important for us as experts to put ourselves in the position of novices. This is part of what we refer to as PCK.
- “Retrace the journey back to innocence…” a quote from Glynis Cousins in a 2006 paper (this one?) which is about better understanding where our students are coming from. I would use the word ‘ignorance’, but like ‘naive’ there are many value judgments associated with it!
- It’s not properly learned unless students can still do it when they weren;t expecting to need to.
From @chemDrK: “not learned unless they know it when not waiting for it to be tested”
Me to @DSGhataura : “*Nobody* expects the Chemical Inquisition!”#rEDRugby
— Ian (@teachingofsci) June 9, 2018
Singapore Bar-Model session by Ben Rogers (@benrogersedu), blogged at Reading for Learning.
- Developing ideas from previous posts on his blog.
- The bar-model is an algebraic way of thinking about a situation, without using algebra explicitly. This means it is compatible with better/quicker approaches, rather than being a way around them like the formula triangle.
Paraphrasing @BenRogersEdu: a formula triangle is an alternative to algebra, the bar model is a step towards it. Compatible with development ie learning. #rEDRugby
— Ian (@teachingofsci) June 9, 2018
- Uses principles from CLT; less working memory is needed for the maths so more is available for the physics.
- Suggests (emphasizes this is speculative) that visual rather than verbal information is a way to expand working memory. This is also an example of dial coding and presumably one of the strengths.
- Compare approaches by using different methods with two halves of a class. Easiest way is to rank them using data, then ‘odd number positions’ use one approach to contrast with ‘even number positions’ for the other. Even if the value of the measurement used for the ranking is debatable, this should give two groups each with a good spread of ability/achievement.
- Useful approach for accumulated change and conservation questions; could be difficulties for those questions where the maths makes it look like a specific relationship, such as V = E/Q, as this reinforces a unit approach rather than ratio.
- A Sankey diagram, although a pain to draw, effectively uses the bar method. The width of each arrow is the length of the bar, and they are conserved.
- Some questions are harder than others and the links may not be obvious to students, even if they are to us. Be explicit about modelling new ‘types’ (and discussing similarity to established methods). This sounds like a use, deliberate or otherwise, of the GRR model from Fisher and Frey.
Memory session by Oliver Caviglioli (@olivercaviglioli)
And here is a summary poster of my researchED Rugby presentation on Memory and Meaning at https://t.co/G4RSGa0jIQ pic.twitter.com/sppI1leflw
— oliver caviglioli (@olivercavigliol) June 10, 2018
- Reconstructing meaning is how we build understanding. Although this process is by necessity individual, it can be more or less efficient.
- The old idea of remembering seven things at once is looking shaky; four is a much better guideline. If one of those things or ‘elements’ is a group, however, it represents a larger number of things. Think of this as nested information, which is available if relevant.
- We need to design our lessons and materials to reduce unproductive use of the limited capacity of the brain.
- Two approaches are the Prototype (Rosch) and Sets (Aristotle). Suspicion that different disciplines lean more towards different ends of this spectrum. Type specimens in science are an interesting example. My standard example is of different Makaton signs for ‘bird’ and ‘duck’ and the confusion that follows. Links to discussion on twitter recently with @chemdrK about how we need to encourage students to see the difference between descriptions and definitions (tags and categories) when, for example, talking about particles.
- Facts can be arranged in different ways including random (disorganised), list, network (connections) and hierarchical. By providing at least some of this structure, from an expert POV, we save students time and effort so recall (and fluency) is much more efficient. Statistic of 20% vs 70% recall quoted. Need to find the source of this and look into creating a demonstration using science vocab for workshops.
- The periodic table is organised data, and so the structure is meaningful as well as the elements themselves. Alphabetical order, or the infamous song, are much less useful.
- Learning as a Generative Activity, 2015 is recommended but expensive at ~£70.
- Boundary conditions are a really important idea; not what works in education, but what works better, for which students, in which subjects, under X conditions. This should be a natural fit for science teachers who are (or should be) used to explaining the limitations of a particular model. This is where evidence from larger scale studies can inform teacher judgment about the ‘best’ approach in their setting and context.
- Bottom-up and top-down approaches then become two ends of a spectrum, with the appropriate technique chosen to suit a particular situation and subject. To helpfully use the good features of a constructionist approach we must set clear boundaries and outcomes; my thought is that for a=F/m we give students the method and then ask them to collect and analyse data, which is very different to expecting them to discover Newton’s Laws unassisted. It might, of course, not feel different to them – they have the motivation of curiosity, which can be harnessed, but it would be irresponsible to give them free rein. From a climber’s perspective, we are spotting and belaying, not hoisting them up the cliff.
Missed Opportunities And My Jobs List
As you might expect, there were several sessions I would have loved to attend. In my fairly limited experience this is a problem with most conferences. In particular I was very disappointed not to have the chance to hear the SLOP talk from @rosalindphys, but the queue was out of the door. The presentation is already online but I haven’t read it yet, because then I knew I’d never get my own debrief done. This applies to several other sessions too, but it was only sensible to aim for sessions which could affect my own practice, which is as a teacher-educator/supporter these days rather than a ‘real’ teacher.
After some tweeted comments, I’m reproducing my jobs list. This has already been extracted from my session notes and added to my diary for the coming weeks, but apparently it may be of interest. In case you’re not interested, my customary appeal for feedback. Please let me know what if any of this was useful for you, and how it compares with your own take-away ideas from the sessions. And if I didn’t catch up with you during the day, hopefully that will happen another time.
Talk to Dom about CPhys course accreditation
- use references list to audit blended learning prototype module
- add KS3 circuits example showing intrinsic/germane/extraneous load to workshop
- review SOLO approach and make notes on links to facts/structured facts part of CLT
check with Pritesh if subject associations have been (or could be) involved with booklet development
- read Kristy’s piece for RSC about doing your first piece of ed research
- check references for advice on coding conversations/feedback for MRes project
- search literature for similar approach (difficulty points scores) for physics equation solving
share idea re reports: a gap in comments may itself be an implicit comment check an alert is set with EEF for science-specific results
- use Robin’s presentation links to review roles for a research-informed school – might be faster to use Niki’s Research Lead presentation
- build retrieval practice exercise for a physics topic that is staged, and gives bonus points for recall of ‘earlier’ concepts
- TILE livestream from Dundee Uni; sign-up form?
follow Damian Benny share ionic movement prac with Niki add Cousin, 2006 to reading list
- write examples of singapore bar model approach for physics contexts – forces?
pre-order Understanding How We Learn
- use Oliver’s links as a way to describe periodic table organisation – blog post?
- find correct reference from Oliver’s talk, AGHE et all 1969 about self-generated vs imposed schema changing recall percentages
You’ll have to check in with me in a month to see how many of these have actually been done…