Joined up thinking

The government have now published the draft of the performance indicators for primary schools at KS1 and KS2 and are consulting on them.

Looking at them, I'm not entirely sure why it took quite so long to produce them - unless it's because the people responsible spend the whole time going 'Oh my, this is going to be hard to do well'. And then they just published a list of what children should be able to do at the end of each KS, which looks almost, but not quite, exactly like the statements in the National curriculum itself.  Michael Tidd (@MichaelT1979) has already blogged about the fact that the performance indicators appear to be levels in all but name, so I won't grumble about them here. 

However, I've been looking at the science descriptors, and there are a couple of things that struck me.

Key Stage 1.
The working scientifically section says:

"While studying the content of biology, chemistry and physics a pupil at the national standard is able to work scientifically by using first-hand practical experiences and a wide range of sources of information to develop an understanding of a range of scientific ideas."

The topics in KS 1 are as follows:
Year 1: Plants; Animals, including humans; Everyday materials; Seasonal changes.
Year 2: Living things and their habitats; Plants; Animals, including humans; Use of everyday materials.

As you can see, physics is distinctly lacking in the list of topics in the NC itself.  Nor does the word appear in the performance indicators.  Instead we have:

Chemistry - Changes in materials

- describe how the shapes of some solid materials can be changed by applying a force.

Hmmm, not really sure that this is actually chemistry.
In a way, I'm pleased, because I have been telling primary teachers that they can sneak forces (pushes, pulls, twists etc) into KS1 using the 'Use of everyday materials' section. (I particularly like the Big Bad Wolf activity in this Teachers TV video).

But Forces as part of Chemistry? Really?

Key Stage 2.
Again, my issue is with the working scientifically section.
Pupils are able to:
recall and use appropriate terminology when working scientifically (at least: accurate, conclusion, evidence, fair test, prediction, reliable, supports (evidence), variable, unit)

Here I take issue with 'reliable'.

A few years back the ASE, in consultation with the metrology institutes in the UK, published a book called 'The Language of Measurement'.  This came about because different exam boards were using terminology differently (and sometimes inconsistently between A-level and GCSE specifications in the same board).  The Language of Measurement therefore puts forward a standard list of terminology that can be used when discussing 'working scientifically'.  All the exam boards have signed up to this, and all the new GCSE and A-level specifications take the recommendations into account.  You can find a sample of the booklet here, or purchase the full booklet here.

So, why the problem with 'reliable'.  Well, this is what the authors say:

"The word ‘reliability’ has posed particular difficulties because it has an everyday usage and had been used in school science to describe raw data, data patterns and conclusions, as well as information sources. On the strong advice of the UK metrology institutes, we avoid using the everyday word ‘reliability’, because of its ambiguity. For data, the terms ‘repeatable’ and ‘reproducible’ are clear and therefore better. For conclusions from an experiment, evaluative statements can mention ‘confidence’ in the quality of the evidence.

pg 6. Language of Measurement

So, pupils in primary school will be taught about 'reliability'.  And then they'll go to secondary school where they will be taught that use of the concept of reliability will lose them marks in tests and exams and that they should use repeatable (same person, same equipment, same results) and reproducible (different person, different equipment, same finding/outcome).

There's nothing like joined up thinking in government.  And this is indeed, nothing like joined up thinking.

Should you be intending to reply to the consultation, please feel free to point out these two examples of the disconnect between the different aspects of the curriculum reform.

And if you're a primary school teacher, please do feel free to teach your children the idea of repeatable and reproducible.  It kind of makes sense.

Working Scientifically

Recently I've been talking with secondary school teachers about the quality of science enquiry that can take place in primary classrooms. I've become more aware of what goes on in primary classrooms because I've been working on a course for primary science specialists.  I have developed sessions on physics subject knowledge (up to KS3), and with colleagues have linked this to activities that take place in the primary classroom.

In the previous national curriculum, science enquiry became a strong focal point in primary classrooms, with a lot of good practice being developed.  The Primary Science Quality Mark (PSQM) and also the Primary Science Teaching Trust have highlighted what good primary science can look like. 

In the new National curriculum, scientific enquiry has been subsumed into 'working scientifically'.

‘Working scientifically’ specifies the understanding of the nature, processes and methods of science for each year group. It should not be taught as a separate strand. These types of scientific enquiry should include: observing over time; pattern seeking; identifying, classifying and grouping; comparative and fair testing (controlled investigations); and researching using secondary sources. Pupils should seek answers to questions through collecting, analysing and presenting data.

pg 3, Science Programme of Study, 2014

I know that a lot of work was done by the primary science community, including the ASE, to ensure that the definition of science enquiry in the new NC was not limited to 'fair tests', but included a range of different ways of doing science.  If you are interested in looking at these ideas in more detail then the ASE publish a book called 'It's not fair...or is it' which is worth a read.

Looking further through the programmes of study, working scientifically is defined in more details for each of the key stages.  So in lower KS2 (years 3 and 4) we find that children  "... should draw simple conclusions and use some scientific language, first, to talk about and, later, to write about what they have found out."  In upper KS2 (years 5 and 6) children "... should select the most appropriate ways to answer science questions using different types of scientific enquiry… Pupils should draw conclusions based on their data and observations, use evidence to justify their ideas, and use their scientific knowledge and understanding to explain their findings."

In good primary science lessons this happens.  Children choosing their own equipment, devising a method, thinking about controlling variables, taking measurements and drawing conclusions from their experiments. 

If you haven't had chance to visit a primary science lesson recently (or at all), I would recommend that you try to do so - especially if you have a PSQM primary school near you.  You might be surprised by what you see.

And then the children enter secondary school, and often this level of independence disappears.

Looking at the statement about what children should be doing in years 5 and 6, many secondary teachers that I have been working with have been struck by the similarity in description between the new primary national curriculum and the marking descriptors for controlled assessment.  

That set me wondering if there were some interesting ideas for enquiries that could also be used as part of the preparation, or even as investigations, for controlled assessment.

A few years ago (when it was still coursework) I was involved in moderating for an exam board.  At the moderation training, we were told to expect to see a wide variety of different investigations.  In reality, I saw a very narrow range of experiments: resistance of a wire, osmosis using potato chips, and the thiosulfate cross.

On one of my courses (small advert!), I do a session on physics enquiry, where we look at different investigations that students could carry out and I thought that perhaps this could be developed further to reflect the changes to the national curriculum from 'How science works' to 'Working scientifically'.  I also wanted to incorporate some of the skills that I'd seen in primary science.

It's a physics course, so I asked my physics minded twitter followers if they had any good examples of experiments used for controlled assessment tasks or investigations that went beyond the ubiquitous resistance of a wire.  

I wanted examples where students would have more freedom about what they might investigate, where the science was perhaps not straightforward. 

Some of the suggestions were of quite straightforward experiments, but I could see that it might be possible for students to design their own method, choose suitable equipment and take data that could be interpreted using their GCSE science knowledge (with perhaps a bit of stretch).

Suggestions given included:

• Ray box and several thermometers with bulbs painted different colours to investigate heat absorption
• Rolling ballbearings down curtain tracks to measure efficiency
• Hookes Law with springs or plastic bags (or use strawberry laces to examine creep)
• Different ways to measure g
• Dropping cupcake cases or parachutes
• 2 beakers of hot water wrapped in paper towels and one is kept wet to investigate evaporation (video of a similar experiment but with bottles and a towel)
• Looking at how power changes with time, doing step-ups on and off benches
• Voltaic piles
• Conduction rods
• Windmills -
• Solar panels

These last two were from the Gatsby SEP Innovations in Practical work series.  They produced a series of booklets on a variety of different topics which included a lot of practical work and also worked with Mindsets online to develop equipment that can be used in science investigations.  The booklets are all available as downloadable PDFs .

With the eventual demise of controlled assessment, I hope that teachers will be able to include a wider variety of practical work.  But as you can see, there is quite a lot of practical work that can be done which will fit into the controlled assessment model - especially if that includes an investigation.

Can you see what it says yet?

For a while now I have used water bubbles (aka super absorbent polymer balls or hydrogel balls) to discuss refractive index and to illustrate the difference between transparent and translucent materials.

You may have seen them discussed on an episode of QI (though I don't recommend the use suggested by Jack Dee at the end of the clip). 

These little balls start out tiny, but can absorb water to grow many times their original size as you can see from the photo.  

Comparing the dry and hydrated bubbles

The waterbubbles, when dropped into water, are almost invisible.  This makes them a nice starter demonstration when teaching refractive index. I start with a bowl of ‘mini bouncy balls’ and a bowl of water.  Tell students that the waterbubbles are ‘magic’ and drop them into the water.  They disappear!  This can be used to elicit some interesting questions and hypotheses about what has happened. 

And they’re a lot less sticky than the pyrex test-tube in glycerine demo that I used to do. 

The waterbubbles have almost exactly the same refractive index as the water, so the light passing through them continues to travel in a straight line without refraction.  That means that we can’t see them and they are invisible.

Even in primary school they can have their uses.  Children are taught that light can pass through some materials (transparent) but not others (opaque).   However, children will also know about opaque materials which let light through, but you can’t see what is on the other side.  In opaque materials the light is scattered as it passes through, and so the ‘picture’ is lost because you’re looking at light from lots of different places on the object.

To demonstrate this, I put lots of the hydrated waterbubbles into a clear plastic container and put it on top of a short poem.  The refraction of the light at the air/water/air boundaries mean that the light is scattered and you can’t see the poem, although you can see that there is something underneath.

Waterbubbles on top of the poem.  They are a model of a translucent material

 

Slowly add water.  As the water covers the waterbubbles they no longer refract the light, and the poem underneath starts to become clearer.

Can you tell what it says yet?

Finally, when all the waterbubbles are covered you can read the poem in its entirety.  The light passes straight through the bubbles, and to you.  

Waterbubbles fully covered with water.  A model for a transparent material.

For older students, you could have them sketch what is happening to the light as it passes through the boundary of the balls, and ask them the explain what they have seen using the terms: refractive index, refraction, boundary, air, water, light.

You are now asking “Where can I get these wonderful water bubbles?”.  The ones in these pictures were taken out of a cheap gel air-freshener, rinsed to get rid of the perfume oil, and put in water to plump them up a bit.  They are used in flower arranging, so a local garden centre or florist might stock them.  I have also bought some from waterbubbles.co.uk in the past.