We ran two video cameras during the “dissection”.  One was a Flip Mino HD and the other was an aGent webcam I bought about two years ago to replace a broken firewire webcam.  I’ve not used the aGent much this past year as my macbook has a built-in iSight camera but it is a nice piece of kit, with a variety of tripods and clips to position it for classroom filming.  I’ve used the aGent for classroom filming before, the same class took a hoover apart but this was the first time I had made much use of the Flip Mino HD.

Three pupils were involved in the dissection while their classmates watched the footage relayed to my projector by the aGent camera. We had a good 30 minutes of unscrewing,wire cutting, removing and identifying various components. Now I have the difficult job, taking footage from the two cameras and producing a short film about the TV during the Easter holiday.

Update:

The video is finished.  Watch it here.

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.

Just before the summer holidays, I thought I might create a series of classroom posters to help pupils identify key vocabulary for each unit of the Standard Grade Physics course, starting with the Using Electricity & Electronics topics for my new S3 & S4 sets respectively.

To generate the wordles, I copied the SQA arrangements for each unit and pasted them into the text box on the wordle site.  I showed the inital results to a test group from the new S3 class and they were not that impressed.

They identified several problems with the output;

• too many words on display (Wordle.net’s default setting is 150 words)
• the random vertical/horizontal word orientation was difficult to read
• words that protruded significantly from the main cloud were distracting
• unappealing colours – particularly so whenever a white background was in use

We started work on these issues by reducing the number of words on display.  The panel felt that 50 words was a good compromise and setting the output preferences to place all words horizontally was straightforward.  Similarly, the positioning of words to avoid any jutting meant remaking the Wordle until it was more pleasing to the eye.  Colour selection, however, was more subjective and it was difficult to achieve a consensus.  Eventually, it was agreed that we would create our own colour palette as agreement could not be reached with the selection provided.

Looking back, I have to agree that the white background is not particularly stimulating and a more inviting word cloud was obtained using a custom palette.  Setting up a custom palette gave a much more visually interesting word cloud, here is the final layout for the Using Electricity vocabulary.

I have to admit the preferring the colour scheme for the Electronics design – it may be the way that the scheme evokes memories of chocolate lime sweets.

I took each of the brightened up designs and uploaded them to a site called BlockPosters.  This site can produce large poster-sized pdf files of any image you upload.  I choose to blow up each image to a 5×2 array – spreading the picture out over 10 sheets of A4 paper.  The printed A4 sheets can then be taped together to create the poster.

So I have 2 posters on my classroom wall now.

They are easier to read than the initial 150 words designs and have colour schemes that appeal to the people intended to use them.  Most importantly, they are being used! When questioning the classes, I see eyes moving towards the posters during “thinking time”.  Not because the answer is on the wall but because pupils know that the vocabulary to scaffold their response will be.

In my tardiness, I have been tagged by both Mrs Moodle and Nick Hood.  Here, finally, is my image.

photo uploaded by jurvetson

Those of you who know I teach Physics will think it’s an obvious choice of image. What is it that appeals to me here? It’s obviously a geeky image with kids taking apart a piece of electronics (it’s a betamax vcr). What I really like is the fact that it is years since Betamax lost the VCR format wars but this device still has value today.

We throw things out unnecessarily these days. There is a lot of educational value in older equipment, particularly in electronics.  Modern equipment is often constructed with a built in obsolescence that prevents repair or makes it uneconomic (so much for sustainability) that often also makes it difficult to see the individual components when we remove the outer cover.

In taking things apart, we offer active and engaging learning.  Ask pupils questions as they “dissect” an old vcr, freeview box or electric sander.  Better still, get them to film the event and add a commentary afterwards -  which part are they removing, what role did it have in the unit ?

I’ve just acquired an old colour portable TV.  My next S3 class will be assessed on their video of this “alien’s” autopsy. 

I’m meant to tag 5 people now.  It’s unlikely I will find five who have not completed this challenge but I shall try tagging

• Tom Barrett
• Alan Stewart
• Andrew Rathie
• David Noble
• Kristian Still

I have not compiled a statistical analysis of the responses, I just skimmed thourgh the sheets as I headed off to hand them in to my boss.  However, I thought I would share the following responses with you as they stood out as recurring themes.

1. Was the course what you expected it to be? Yes but there was more/less maths than expected.
2. Did you enjoy the course? Yes
3. What did you like about the course? Lots of youtube and computer stuff to show us and keep us interested, other teachers say they are a waste of time.
4. What are other departments doing that we could be doing to improve your learning experience? The Physics labs are dumps! Can’t you at least paint them?

The first response interests me as it shows that some kids enter physics with a preconceived idea that it will be all about maths, while others barely notice the numerical side of the course.  It’s true to say that there is a numeracy divide in Physics and it is a shame that all we offer pupils on the other side is Intermediate 1, despite their often strong reasoning and explaining skills.

The third response in that list is interesting too.  As someone who has fought to have youtube.com unblocked for staff, I have continued to make full use of it to help pupils visualise a new concept as it is introduced.  It’s also very helpful in flushing out those persistent misconceptions.  Clearly, this response shows that my colleagues wouldn’t notice if access had remained blocked.

The final response is one with which I agree.  My room is a tip.  Partly due to circumstances I won’t air here but also due to the ongoing plan to move science into another part of the school.  Other rooms are being given a lick of paint, new carpet, perhaps even some new furniture.  Since my room is scheduled to be ripped out as soon as someone finds the cash to do so, I must continue to work in less than satisfactory conditions with broken floor tiles, 50 year-old stools and shabby walls that I try to hide behind posters.

More important than all of this is the verbal feedback I received.  Many of the pupils had completed the same survey in Biology and Chemistry earlier in the week and were now sick of it.  Their point was simple.  If we don’t care enough to taylor the survey to the subject in question then it sends a signal that we probably don’t care too much about their responses either.  They’ve got a point, haven’t they?  While some of my classes have already started study leave, I still have a week or so before the others head off.  I think there’s still time for me to provide a more personalised approach to the pupil survey.

I’m going to pay attention to what he says. I should have had a wiki by now. I entered the Rolls-Royce Science Prize last year – read my entry here rolls-royce-science-prize.pdf. My idea was to build a wiki resource with S2 pupils to use in Science class, a wiki written by pupils for other pupils and using audio and video to aid accessibility and promote collaboration among lower ability class sets. Unfortunately, the panel of judges didn’t find sufficient merit in my plan and I had to make do with a small shiny plaque for the school library wall.

I bumped into one of the competition manages at the Scottish Learning Festival in September and he told me that the judges felt there was too much ICT and not enough Science in my submission. There I was thinking that the whole point of the exercise was to improve Science teaching, not do more Science. But what do I know? In the meantime, here I am.

A year has passed and the bottom ability S2 Science set feature on my timetable once more. The course is still not meeting their needs and I am still having to drag them kicking and screaming (them and me both) up to the page in the notes that will feature in their exam at the end of this month.

I realised that I had done something stupid in questions 8 & 9, with results that are sufficiently interesting for me to share them. Question 8 asked pupils to rate themselves using the statement

“I know that electrical energy transformed each second =IV”

From the image below, we see that only 50% of my S3 pupils are confident that they know this.

To help non-physicists see what is interesting, I need to explain that

energy transformed each second = power

current has the symbol I

voltage has the symbol V

Armed with this, have a look at the details for question 9 (below) and the responses I received to the statement

“I can perform calculations involving power, current and voltage.”

These two questions are asking the same thing, yet an extra 35% of the pupils felt that they had achieved the learning outcome.

The reason for the difference lies in the language used to express the question. What does this tell me? I think it tells me two things – three things if I include checking the questions before I set them!

First of all, the learning is not as secure as I would like. While pupils might know the relationship that exists between power, current and voltage, they lack a sufficiently deep understanding to put this relationship into context.

The second point is that the language we use to frame a question plays a critical role in determining whether or not pupils can provide an answer. In other words, how much of the assessment we put children through is a true assessment of the subject area in question and how much is a test of their ability to unpick the language of assessment to identify find the real question underneath?

I thought I had been smart by setting up two different collectors, one for each class, but it seems that the results are being lumped together as 40 respondents rather than 2 groups of 20. Luckily, I still have the custom data field with the unique identifier to help me sort them back into class sets of data. One of my concerns has been that each class has had a different experience with me and I want to see if this is born in the self-assessment. I’ll share some data over the weekend once the pile of prelim marking is out of the way.

I have two S3 classes this year and I thought that I would see how they thought they were progressing by repeating the activity. The first class I tried it with said they thought it was a waste of time. They thought I had my own opinion of their progress and whatever they thought about their own performance would not change my mind. The second class reacted differently to the idea. They were interested but privacy was a major issue for them. How could they express their true thoughts without revealing any potential shortcomings to their peers. They told me that one of the MFL teachers makes everyone close their eyes and she has pupils raising their hand when green, amber or red is read aloud. They don’t like this approach either.

Today, I decided to spend some time coming up with something different. I have signed up for a free basic account at SurveyMonkey and have prepared a series of 10 questions (the most you can have on the free account) for self assessment. As I don’t know their email addresses, I have had to use a partially-supported method involving a unique identifier at the end of the link to the survey (more about that here). I am going to try the web survey technique this week. I’ll share the results once I figure out what they mean.