Tag Archives: fourth level

Talk with us…improving sciences education 3-18 conversation days

February 13, 2013 User deactivated 3 Comments

At our first face-to-face conversation day in December 2012, delegates heard from young people and practitioners, before joining in discussion in groups to review the key strengths and aspects for development from the Sciences 3-18 Curriculum Area Impact Project report. Groups were asked to consider, what are the key priorities for transforming sciences education over the next 3 to 5 years? Groups discussed key priorities for sciences education, reflecting on the report’s findings and on their own views. We shared these discussions in our 23rd January post.

In the afternoon session, groups selected one of the priorities to explore in more depth, using the Implento tool. Almost all groups chose the same issue – raising confidence of practitioners teaching sciences within the broad general education – and through the afternoon sessions identified actions to help achieve this were discussed.

Below are the discussion notes, in the delegates’ own words:

We decided to work through the following action:

Boosting confidence of practitioners teaching sciences within the broad general education

We identified the following worst fears and outcomes from this action:

status quo; learning and teaching does not improve; teaching to the test is the norm and learners are exposed only to content without higher-order thinking skills; lack of scientific inquiry;

primary sector not including sciences;

science taught is less topical, and lacks creativity; teaching is in discrete subjects and chunks;

children and young people are less interested, and less confident, in STEM subjects; uptake falls; children and young people have poor scientific literacy, general population is less scientifically literate;

staff feel overwhelmed and disillusioned; loss of practitioners from the profession;

political demand for specialists, diminishing resources;

the skills gap increases; Scotland’s economy suffers, low-tech economy unable to support high-tech business;

decline in life chances, choices and opportunities for young people.

The following actions were suggested to recover from this negative picture:

review, gather evidence, revisit the programme of support; clear and concise documentation for educational matters;

ensure greater accountability;

address leadership weaknesses at all levels—including continuity and school and council level; ITE and GTCS working together to promote strong leadership;

work collaboratively to identify and build body of excellent practice; practitioners involved in building support networks, peer learning and support; practitioners and resources updated; professional learning for and by practitioners becomes outcome and impact-based;

ensure high-quality learning and teaching with on-going professional learning, accompanied by quality dialogue about learning and teaching; use of professional learning communities, for example teacher learning communities; encourage practitioners to undertake classroom based research;

engage with learners and parents to enthuse about science before it becomes a chore; emphasise skills in science to meet industry needs and enthuse learners;

consideration of assessment methods; is the test worthwhile? Is it testing what matters? Learners able to self-select evidence of learning; change community ideas of value of the test by working together;

advantageous tax rates for new, high-tech businesses.

We saw the following positive outcomes as real possibilities:

science for all—not elitist;

Scotland established centre of excellence for science with room for diversity;

better communication and collaboration across all sectors;

increased uptake in STEM by all young people; increase in males in biology and females in physics;

children and young people being given, accepting and eventually demanding responsibility for their own learning; practitioners learning from children and young people with informed debate between learners and staff; children and young people talking about science and more confident;

learners exhibit increased curiosity, creativity, skills development, confidence; increased literacy and scientific literacy;

confident and enthusiastic staff, meeting the needs of individuals, with the confidence to apply science to every-day events;

scientific thinking informs other subjects; clearer natural interdisciplinary learning and understanding; science is relevant, and genuinely inquiry-based;

engaged learners and communities; better parental engagement and understanding of science.

The following were suggested as ways to build on the positive outcomes:

re-identifying the priority: the learner at the centre and development of the four capacities; implementation in an holistic way maintaining performance and enthusiasm; education authorities working together;

collaborating closely between industry and academia to reinforce shared goal outcomes, ES role in encouraging and supporting this;

promoting the development of school leadership;

developing learning communities in education authorities and online; developing mentoring and peer support within education authorities; continue to support publication of reports by online engagement;

creating a portal of research for practitioners and commissioning independent research;

sharing good practice and parental involvement that is apparent in early years to continue into all sectors of education; sharing excellent practice and identifying “champion” schools;

exemplifying excellence in learning and teaching; filtering and recommending practical classroom resources; exemplification of science investigation and inquiry within broad general education;

developing shared understanding of relevant skills, skills progression and how to develop these skills; emphasise development of higher-order thinking skills and build these into National 4 and 5;

sharing lessons learned in the sciences across other curriculum areas;

planning for contextualised learning with the big ideas of sciences understood; planning across four aspects of the curriculum, and for 3-18 in a seamless way;

ensuring professional learning has a focus on the national perspective and linking to national agenda, with local quality assurance of provision;

reviewing ITE selection processes.

Education Scotland has licensed the Transition Leadership tools and the Three Horizons toolkit for the specific and sole purpose of improving Scottish Education and the partner services that support it. We are delighted to have partnered the following people and organisations in this venture: Executive Arts Inc.; James R. Ewing, ForthRoad Ltd.; International Futures Forum and Graham Leicester.

Talk with us…improving sciences education 3-18 conversation days

January 23, 2013 User deactivated Leave a comment

Now that we are into the second half of January we are setting in motion our planning for the second of our series of face-to-face conversation days about improving sciences education 3-18 in Scotland.

We were delighted to be joined on our first day in December by young people and parents, practitioners from early years, primary, secondary and special schools, representatives from further and higher education, and a range of partners, with representation from a wide range of geographical areas across Scotland.

Following presentations from young people and practitioners, delegates joined in discussion in groups to review the key strengths and aspects for development from the Sciences 3-18 Curriculum Area Impact Project report. Groups were asked to consider, what are the priorities for transforming sciences education over the next 3 to 5 years? Groups discussed key priorities for sciences education, reflecting on the report’s findings and on their own views.

The priorities identified, in the delegates’ own words, included:

Planning for high-quality learning and teaching

The need for high-quality learning and teaching leading to highly-motivated children and young people. Within this priorities were given as: implementing planning which ensures a coherent curriculum and seamless learning from 3-18, across transitions at all stages, within levels, across sectors and from broad general education (BGE) to senior phase, with communication to ensure effective progression and taking account of prior learning; ensuring all practitioners plan learning across the four aspects of the curriculum, including interdisciplinary learning; ensuring BGE continues until the end of S3 in secondary schools; regular feedback to children and young people, and as part of planning for learning, so that they know how to improve their learning and know what success looks like; building confidence in assessing progress in the sciences in the BGE and towards qualifications; supporting young people in making successful transitions to positive and sustained destinations with the right skills including literacy, numeracy and scientific skills.

Confidence of practitioners

Boosting the confidence of every / any practitioner teaching the sciences in the broad general education, and in all sectors. Giving colleagues the confidence to share courses and programmes, developing ideas and work.

Professional learning

Highly-skilled professionals and leadership at all levels. Professional development of practitioners in post being updated and monitored through robust systems which encourage and ensure participation. High-quality professional learning linked to personal and departmental improvement plans. Professional learning to support practitioners in developing knowledge and understanding of relevance and purpose of learning in the sciences, linked to transferable skills.

Partnerships

Developing genuine partnerships with parents, industry, colleges

Inclusion

Sciences for all, through a motivating and challenging curriculum. We need to ensure that all learners are aware of strengths and recognise successes to keep them engaged with the sciences throughout and beyond school.

In the afternoon session, groups selected one of the priorities to explore in more depth, using the Implento tool. Almost all groups chose the same issue – raising confidence of practitioners teaching sciences in the broad general education – and through the afternoon sessions identified actions to help achieve this were discussed.

The groups’ conversations, and those from future conversation days, will be instrumental in helping us to shape our priorities for the forthcoming sessions, to help us all work together to achieve transformational change in sciences 3-18 education in Scotland.

Our second face-to-face conversation day will take place in Spring 2013, with further conversations planned for Summer 2013. If you are interested in participating, or in hosting a conversation day please contact Lisi Kama (Lisi.Kama@educationscotland.gsi.gov.uk).

You can find out more about the first of the conversation days on this blog:

Talk with us…about what makes a good science teacher

Talk with us…improving science education 3-18 conversation days

Talk with us…about inspiring girls in STEM

Talk with us…about sharing practice

Talk with us…about exemplification

January 11, 2013 User deactivated Leave a comment

In our 10th December discussion day, exemplification of learning and teaching within the broad general education and senior phase was discussed as being helpful to practitioners.

One of Education Scotland’s approaches to this within the sciences is through STEM Central, our web based resource which provides rich, stimulating and challenge contexts for learning, exemplifying how to make connections between sciences, technologies and mathematics in strong Scottish contexts. The contexts published to date include energy-saving house, electric transport, water, renewables, bioengineering, games and sound, with our latest context “Rescue Vehicles” going live very soon.

Within each context is a selection of teaching ideas, activities, videos and interactives, designed to help practitioners plan learning and teaching, identifying and using quality STEM resources from partners and the web. Learning journeys also exemplify how to incorporate responsibilities for all, and develop capabilities, attributes and higher-order thinking skills.

Practitioners working with colleagues have found it helpful to use the learning journeys as the basis for talking together to understand standards. STEM Central has also been used to support primary / secondary cluster work to plan for progression through the broad general education. In this context, as well as using the STEM Central resources directly, staff have found that they can use the STEM Central approaches as the basis for their own planning.

Learning and teaching in the Senior Phase is also exemplified through our published advice and guidance. Over the last six months this has included advice, guidance and exemplification of themes for learning such as Food Security, Energy Security and Health, as well as exemplfication of learning and teaching to support skills development.

Recently published Professional Focus Papers highlight important features of learning which are enhanced or different from previous arrangements at SCQF 4 and 5.

How are you using exemplfication as the basis for professional dialogue, planning for learning and teaching or directly in your classroom?

Talk with us…about inspiring girls in STEM

December 13, 2012 User deactivated 2 Comments

At Monday’s Improving Sciences Education 3-18 Conversation Day, Catherine Colvin, a former pupil of Monifieth High School in Angus, and now a student of Electronic and Electrical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde shared her experiences in the sciences at school. She talked about inspiring learning and teaching, leading to her choosing to take Chemistry and Physics at Higher, and Physics at Advanced Higher. Catherine also talked about her involvement with editing Exploring Engineering videos for Education Scotland’s STEM Central website, which she found helpful in understanding the possibilities of careers in engineering. In particular, the interview with Amber Gell, an engineer with NASA gave Catherine the confidence to pursue engineering at university.

If you’re interested in seeing those inspiring videos, you can find them on STEM Central.

Talk with us…improving science education 3-18 conversation days

December 11, 2012 User deactivated Leave a comment

The first of our face- to-face Improving Sciences Education 3-18 conversation days took place on Monday 10^th at Denholm House in Livingston.

Setting the scene for an inclusive agenda for the sciences for all our children and young people were Education Scotland’s Ken Muir, Graham Norris and Marie McAdam. The It’s My Future song Believe , written and performed by children and young people from across Scotland about their hopes and expectations for the future, and what they want from education to help them achieve these reminded us of the purpose of the day and the impetus for change.

Without a doubt, we have a tremendous will and willingness in Scotland to ensure that our children and young people have access to the highest-quality sciences education. Curriculum for Excellence provides us with the ideal vehicle for doing so. A theme which came across throughout the day is that there is no magic answer, no “one size fits all” solution but that collectively we are in a far better position than working alone. Working together, we have a real opportunity for transformational change in sciences education 3-18.

We were delighted to be joined by children and young people, parents and practitioners from early years, primary, secondary and special schools, further and higher education, as well as a range of partners, and by the geographical spread represented at the day.

Kerry Edwards, from Strathallan Primary in Fife, shared with the delegates the Strathallan story of change in the sciences, from early years to primary 7, recognising the challenges experienced and the positive outcomes resulting from facing these challenges. Cara Jackson, Georgea Speedie, Fraser Foye, Scott Mitchell and Robyn Gardiner from Bellshill Academy told us about their experiences of sciences in the context of STEM – what inspires them, what motivates them and how these experiences have impacted on their views of science. Catherine Colvin, a former pupil from Monifieth High School who is now studying Electronic and Electrical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde shared her experiences and what inspired her to pursue engineering in higher education. Scott Harper, a former pupil from Kirkcaldy High School who is studying Maths at St Andrews, reflected on his learning in the sciences. He described the key motivators for him, drawing out issues such as opportunities for meaningful interdisciplinary learning, the motivation of succeeding in work which is challenging and the importance of quality opportunities to see relevance and opportunities beyond the classroom. Donna McMaster, Head Teacher at Inveralmond Community High School, closed this first segment by highlighting the very real opportunities presented to us as we move forward in sciences education.

The delegates participated in three discussion group sessions, broadly

– Where are we now? What does the evidence tell us? Using the Sciences 3-18 Curriculum Area Impact Project report as a tool for reflection to arrive at a shared understanding of Curriculum for Excellence in the Sciences

– Where are we going? What should the sciences 3-18 look like 3-5 years from now, getting it right for every child and young person?

– Moving forward. How can we work in partnership to increase the momentum for innovation, to achieve transformational change?

Sessions were structured using the “Implemento” tool for transformational change.

Over the next few weeks, we will share with you the outcomes from the discussion sessions, and as we develop our business plans for 2013/14, details of how these discussions are impacting on our plans for moving forward.

Talk with us…about using the Concept Development in conjunction with Es and Os

November 2, 2012 User deactivated Leave a comment

Within the report, the Concept Development in the sciences (2009) paper was highlighted in a number of sections:

“too many teachers across all sectors are unaware of the Sciences: Concept development in the sciences (2009) paper which should be used in tandem with the sciences experiences and outcomes (2009)”;

“too many staff from across all sectors are still not aware of the Sciences: Concept development in the sciences (2009) paper and learning consequently lacks depth in a few key areas”;

“there is a need to ensure that learning sequences are well-planned to develop concepts in a coherent way. The Sciences: Concept development in the sciences (2009) paper could be used better as the basis for such planning.”

The Concept Development paper can be used by practitioners to aid understanding of level of complexity and depth of treatment.

Consider two Es and Os:

By investigating floating and sinking of objects in water, I can apply my understanding of buoyancy to solve a practical challenge. SCN 2-08b

Through experimentation, I can explain floating and sinking in terms of the relative densities of different materials. SCN 4-08b

Both talk about “floating and sinking” so how do these differ? What makes one appropriate to second level and the other fourth? The Concept Development paper fleshes this out to illustrate the depth of treatment at second level.

“At second level (SCN 2-08b), experiments on floating and sinking allow learners to identify materials which are lighter (less dense) or heavier (more dense) than water. They can carry out a practical challenge to design, construct and test objects made from more dense materials but which will float.”

Notice also that the fourth level outcome calls for explanation rather than investigation and application, and explanation in terms of relative density which is more challenging conceptually.

Now consider:

I have collaborated in investigations to compare magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational forces and have explored their practical applications. SCN 2-08a

Is this “too hard” for second level? Is SCN2-08a more difficult than fourth level SCN4-08b because “floating and sinking” sounds easier?

The Concept Development paper again fleshes out depth of treatment and complexity, to illustrate what this looks like at second level, and the purpose of the learning associated with this E&O.

“At first and second levels (SCN 1-08a and SCN 2-08a), playing with magnets introduces learners to forces which can act over a distance and helps them identify magnetic materials (most commonly iron, but also nickel and cobalt) and non-magnetic materials (e.g. aluminium, copper and brass, and all nonmetals).

At second level they develop their understanding of forces by exploring magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational forces as examples of forces which can act over a distance (i.e. the objects do not need to touch). An important distinction for learners is that they recognise that magnetic and electrostatic forces can attract or repel, while gravitational forces always attract. They learn that the force of gravity between two objects is normally only observed when one object has a very large mass e.g. the Earth or the sun.”

STEM Central materials on Rescue Vehicles for second level explore approaches to learning and teaching incorporating SCN2-08b, exemplifying what this can look like in practice in the context of flood rescue. Currently in development, publication is anticipated early in 2013.

STEM Central in Motion offers ideas around learning and teaching for STEM subjects, and our new STEM Professional Learning Community at bit.ly/stemhome (Glow login required) offers a place for educators to share, and to access professional learning associated with STEM, using community tools to measure impact.

Talk with us…about engaging children and young people in the Sciences 3-18 debate

October 8, 2012 User deactivated Leave a comment

Going well? Could be better? Along with the full report on the Sciences 3-18 Curriculum Area Impact Project, we launched last week a summary for children and young people bit.ly/sciences3-18childrenandyoungpeople . We want to hear from children and young people about their experiences and views around sciences, to help us focus on what we need to do next. Do you have plans to use the summary for children and young people, and the “conversation starters” below to engage your learners, or your own children, in the debate?

Talk with us…about concept development in the sciences

October 1, 2012 User deactivated Leave a comment

The Concept Development in the Sciences (2009) is highlighted in the Sciences 3-18 Curriculum Area Impact Project report as guidance to be used in tandem with the sciences experiences and outcomes (2009) to aid in planning for appropriate depth and coherence.

How are you using the Concept Development in the Sciences (2009) paper as part of planning for learning and teaching in your role?

Talk with us…about practical work in the sciences

September 26, 2012 User deactivated Leave a comment

As you might expect from an analysis and evaluation of the sciences 3-18 in Scotland, practical work and its role in the sciences is discussed.

“Young people at S1 and S2 frequently report enjoying practical work which they have experienced in their learning in the sciences…At S1 and S2 young people generally have plenty of opportunity to carry out practical work allowing them to develop a range of practical technique and investigation skills often within relevant and real-life contexts. They often cite this aspect of their learning as one of the main reasons they enjoy science.”

“Young people at secondary school are developing practical investigation and inquiry skills within a range of relevant and real-life contexts. They can generally work collaboratively to plan fair tests, make a valid hypothesis, collect appropriate evidence, observe, measure accurately, estimate, record results in an appropriate format, interpret and evaluate findings and present them in a way of their choosing. They are often able to link two variables to determine relationships. A strong feature of practical work is young people’s ability to manipulate and name scientific equipment confidently, apply safety measures and take necessary actions to control risk and hazards. Many are not yet skilled at identifying the limitations of practical technique and scientific equipment and suggesting improvements to experimental work or investigation.”

In the report we have identified some good practice. Examples 13, 19, 24, 27 and 32 illustrate practice taking place in our pre-school centres and schools, and are particularly relevant to this discussion.

What are your experiences of practical work in the sciences? Whether you are a child, young person, practitioner or parents, join in the discussion!

Talk with us…about gender imbalance in subject choices in the senior phase

September 24, 2012 User deactivated Leave a comment

“In some secondary schools, there have been clear gender differences regarding the uptake of physics and biology. For example in some schools, biology is predominantly studied by girls at national qualification stages and physics by boys. This is also reflected in national figures (see Appendix 4). In some schools, this has not been a notable feature. Some schools, having recognised this as an issue, had taken proactive measures such as promoting the Women into Science programme. Others have been unaware of this issue despite comprehensive examination analysis. A few schools have recognised this as an issue but have as yet taken no positive action to address this, with no relevant priorities appearing on their improvement plan.”

“In the last decade, physics courses by S4 have been taken consistently by a higher proportion of boys. Although the proportion of boys studying biology courses by S4 over the last decade has been increasing, there has been a notably higher proportion of girls taking these courses. There is no notable gender difference with chemistry and science.”

“A consistently higher proportion of boys have taken Higher physics over the past decade. Although the gender balance in Higher biology and Higher human biology is improving, a notably higher proportion of girls have consistently taken these subjects over the last decade. Chemistry shows no such gender difference.”

As identified in the report, this gender imbalance is not notable in all schools.

Some questions for consideration and discussion:

Does this gender imbalance in subject choice exist in your school?

Has your school been proactive in seeking to address this? Has there been measurable impact as a result of your actions?

It would be particularly interesting to hear from young people and parents around this issue.