2.1 Scottish Scientists

As part of their work in the ‘Scotland the Great’ unit, S2 pupils have to conduct research into the work of scientists from Scotland and beyond.

This class have taken a slightly different approach to the normal ways of completing this task by researching scientists working in Scotland today.

Pupils were put in pairs, given the name of a university in Scotland and a department within that university. They were then asked to find the name and contact details for someone conducting research in that department, and to send them an email asking the following –

  • what were their qualifications and experience?
  • what was their research about and why was it important?
  • what advice would they give to young people studying science?

Not all of the pupils received replies – this is entirely understandable, as it might not always be easy for these busy people to respond. In these cases, pupils were given the name of a scientist to find information on from the usual internet sources.

With the information they had, either from the replies to their emails, or from their research, pupils were instructed to put together a presentation using Sway – a new presentation tool built into the Office 365 tools in Glow.

David & Tyron – Dr Victoria Martin

Mhairi & Rebecca – Dr Matthew Pitkin

Billy & Cal – Dr Alison Pease

Aaron & Robert – Prof S Ashbrook

Harvey & Craig – Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell

Chahna & Nadia – Prof Ian Wilmut

2.7 Reproduction – Health during Pregnancy

As part of their sub-topic on reproduction, 2.7 spent one period researching health issues for pregnant mothers. This research was conducted in pairs, with students gathering information about what expectant mothers should and shouldn’t do during their pregnancy, and why. Prior to their research the students were not told how they would be presenting their information.

In the second period, pupils were grouped into fours, given a sheet of flipchart paper and a different coloured pen each. They were given time to do further individual research, if required, and to add their information to their group’s poster. They were also told to keep to their own colour of pen and that they should all make a contribution to the poster – which could be checked by the colours of ink seen.

In the third period, each group was given another group’s poster and asked to evaluate what was good about it (GOOD) and feed back what could be improved (BETTER). Groups were told not to comment on the presentation, only on the quality of the information given and the effectiveness of the group in completing the task.

The posters are shown below with the feedback given.

Catriona, Ross & Rebecca –

Pregnancy - Catriona, Ross, Rebecca

GOOD – good information, with good explanations

BETTER – a bit more information on other things

Ellie, Holly, Christopher & Dylan –

Pregnancy - Elie, Holly, Chris, Dylan

GOOD – lots of good information, well explained

BETTER – difficult to improve upon

Jessica, Alexander, Josh & David –

Pregnancy - Jessica, Alexander, Ross, David

GOOD – lots of examples, good descriptions

BETTER – more explanation of why some things are bad for you, keeping information focussed on pregnancy – not caring for babies

Kayla, Cameron McB, Callum & Cameron McK –

Pregnancy - Kayla, Cameron McB, Callum, Cameron McK

GOOD – good information, lots of information

BETTER – more equal input from all members of group

If you would like to add your own feedback, please use the comments below.