Nov 28 2009
literacy in physics
I’ve been thinking recently about numeracy, literacy and where they fit within my subject area. While these thoughts have been bouncing about in my head for a wee while now, it’s only after reading Bill Boyd’s excellent post on literacy for all that I thought I would try to write something down.
Numeracy in physics is unavoidable. At all levels, pupils are expected to analyse information and solve a problem by performing one or more calculations. This is the familiar face of physics, the side that often results in people telling me that they can’t/couldn’t/didn’t take physics at school because they couldn’t do maths.
After discussions with my maths colleagues, I had to look at my classroom practice and adjust my methods so that pupils see a familiar approach to problem solving. The examples provided in our new whole school numeracy policy booklet have been very helpful here.
I’m also starting to discover where the literacy demands in physics are greatest. The closer I look, the more obvious it seems that literacy was an issue in Physics long before the Curriculum for Excellence ring binder appeared. Students who are confident in calculation-based tasks often find descriptions or explanations very challenging.
In my opinion there are two topics that stand out. The electronics unit of Standard Grade and the Gas Laws in the Higher course are both particularly challenging in terms of the literacy demand placed on learners. In each of these topics, pupils are often asked to explain behaviour of a system. The skills needed to succeed in these tasks are outlined in the new literacy outcomes.
Learners require a command of the appropriate vocabulary
I can use a range of strategies and resources independently and ensure that my spelling, including specialist vocabulary, is accurate. LIT 4-21a
and must be able to sequence the information (pupils often call this “cause and effect”)
I can convey information and describe events, explain processes or concepts, providing substantiating evidence, and synthesise ideas or opinions in different ways. LIT 4-28a
So here are the strategies I have introduced so far with a view to enhancing literacy in physics.
- Create Wordle wall posters showing key vocabulary for the current unit. I’ve made these by copying text from the SQA documents and then blowing them up on the excellent Blockposters site. I’ve mentioned this step before.
- Think-pair-share activities to encourage pupils to identify for themselves what is required.
- Pupils use the results of think-pair-share to gather together their agreed ideas of what makes a good description and generate a mind map
- Use the mind map as a starting point for additional descriptive work. These tasks can incorporate peer assessment to ensure all learners receive prompt feedback. Use of peer feedback in pairs or trios ensures that pupils can compare their work and get a feel for quality.
I’ve trialled these approaches in S3-S5 and most pupils report that they find them to be helpful activities. Is it enough though?
Update: the above example relates to the electronics unit of Standard Grade Physics. I have posted a modified version for the Higher Physics gas laws topic on my classroom blog.
Good stuff as always Mr M!
Will point Mr PK and the other science teachers to your blog post.
Great post – your strategies really show what is required and the students get a good practical understanding of the quality required. I have tried your wordle suggestion in my (primary school) classroom to great effect, thanks
May I suggest another step at the end of your process? Collect examples of students responses (or jointly construct responses with your class) and use them as examples of various grades/ levels. I’m not sure how you grade in Scotland, but in Australia we use A-E so we design (usually as a class group) example responses that show an A grade, a B grade etc.
This extra step really models and makes it very clear to students what great responses “look” and “sound” like.
KimP
Thanks for your comment, Dave. Feel free to pass it on.
Kim,
Thanks for that brilliant idea!
At this stage of CfE implementation, I think it would be helpful for both students and staff to see examples that illustrate different levels of work. I’ll get some of their work photocopied copied for a sample portfolio.
Sinclair,
Thanks for the generous comments in your post. Some really good ideas here. I would add that when students are at the stage of writing reports as part of the formal requirements in national qualifications they should still be encouraged to read them aloud to help with, and to demonstrate, understanding. We often shy away from asking older kids to read their work which is a shame, as you can’t always judge the degree of understanding from a piece of writing. That is not to say that they should necessary be asked to read aloud in front of the whole class, but there are other ways to do it, even if it is only reading it to themselves in the mirror! Audio and video recording and playback seems the obvious way to do it.
Bill
It is a good thing to ask a group of pupils to reflect on, analyse and discuss ‘what makes an answer a good answer’. It is a better thing (for a teacher) to ask themselves (and other engaged stakeholders) what makes a good question in the first place.
‘Question: Look at the circuit diagram below. Describe what will happen in this circuit as the light level is increased.’ (Pupils are asked to discuss which of various answers provided is best)
I suggest this alternative:
Look at the circuit diagram below. When the ambient light level increases, the potential difference displayed by the voltmeter always falls. Explain, as fully as you can, the physical processes that lead to this observed ’cause and effect’.
Make no mistake, I am mightily impressed by your engagement in the task of teaching science; but I hold to my belief that the purpose of teaching science is to engage pupils in the process of understanding ‘natural philosophy’. It is wooly sheepshit to ask pupils to ‘describe what happens’, when the key task is for them to develop the desire to understand WHY things happen. I could go on, but I guess you get the point. My question is, are you at least open to the argument that I am advancing?
I appreciate that the example question you have used here may have come from the SQA or some other reputable source. That doesn’t prevent it from being a poor question, does it? If Curriculum for Excellence is going to make a real difference, the exams in fourth and fifth year will have to change in response to the progress in teaching and learning that will be made in the earlier years. ps thanks for Wordle!
@ A. Fraser
Thanks for taking time to leave a comment and participate in the discussion, it’s always good to hear what other people are thinking on these topics.
My point in using activities like this in class is to encourage pupils to identify for themselves the criteria for writing a good answer. The exercise is designed to be collaborative in nature and I encourage learners to provide feedback to their peers and help them to develop the necessary skills to succeed in meeting the intended learning outcome.
As I said in the original post, writing this kind of response is challenging for most pupils in S3/S4 – these are the years where pupils at my school encounter electronics in the Standard Grade Physics course. I believe it is important to keep the language of these tasks accessible for all pupils, including those working at a lower General level. Differentiation by task and outcome can be achieved in terms of circuit complexity, e.g. by considering the behaviour of a voltage divider or transistor switching circuit, rather than in linguistic terms.
The alternative wording you have suggested highlights the difficulties we appear to have with literacy in Physics. For example, the term “potential difference” does not actually appear in the SQA arrangements document for Standard Grade Physics. It does, however, appear in the content statements for Intermediate 2 and Higher.