So many students come into High School Science with an excitement for science. In Middle School, they have been tinkering, designing, experimenting and playing around with science (whilst still picking up some fundamental knowledge I hope!). Then, they sit their first timed assessment and get their first results. For some students, this sends them down a path of chasing the top grade and forgetting to develop a Scientist’s Mindset (for a look at my blog post on this, go here). For some, it sends them into a spiral of despair that makes them say things like, “I’m no good at science!”. And then there are plenty of students in the middle. Then, there are those students who do well in timed assessments but still keep that sense of wonder about the universe.
Something I try to stress to my students is that timed assessments do not define their ability in science. They are but one way of assessing knowledge and understanding. They do not say whether you are a good scientist or not. I have attempted to reframe students thinking by calling them a “Learning Opportunity”. This always draws a laugh and a smile (but does it actually change their approach…?). When approaching timed assessments, I want students to be thinking the following:
Timed assessments are an opportunity to see what knowledge I have picked up and whether I can apply it in a different context
Timed assessments are an opportunity to find out any gaps in my knowledge and understanding
Timed assessments are an opportunity to develop good learning habits that might help me throughout my life
Timed assessments do not define me, they help me to develop further.
This is all great, but I do understand that students find timed assessments stressful. They know that at the end of the course they will have to sit a timed assessment. This is the way education courses are set up at the moment. As a classroom teacher, I am not in a position to change that right now (I can only add to the discourse and hope that influential policymakers enact change), but I am in a position to change my students’ approach and outlook on that. With that in mind, I have tried to adapt Carol Dweck’s growth mindset (more on that here) to timed assessments. My thinking is outlined in the diagram below. Just like The Scientist’s Mindset, it is a work in progress and I would love to hear your thoughts! Is this approach valid? What have you tried here? Is anything missing? Are you a student and scared of timed assessments? How might this approach help you see the light at the end of the tunnel and regain your love of learning?
Education is set up in such a way that students are judged by their ability to perform a very specific skill which is completing timed assessments. Entire educations (mine was) can be set up with this in mind! With this being an end goal, we set up systems that equate performance in tests with mastery of a subject such as science.
For science (and indeed most other subjects) the very notion that doing well in a timed assessment means that you are a “good scientist” is absurd. Doing well in a timed assessment tells me:
You are good at timed assessments
You are able to memorise and apply concepts
You MIGHT be a good scientist
Notice the emphasis on the might. You MIGHT be a good scientist. I don’t know for sure if you are. I know for sure you are good at timed assessments. Are you a good scientist? I’m sure you could be, but you’ll have to show me in some other way for me to be satisfied.
This got me thinking about the difference between doing well in timed assessments and having a good scientist’s mindset. If a student can adopt a scientist’s Mindset then they will keep learning beyond the curriculum. They will see opportunities for learning more about the universe everywhere. They will become changemakers. They will become inventors. They will create and transform the world. If they leave as just good test takers, well, they will be good at ticking boxes, that’s for sure.
So, what is the Scientist’s Mindset? My thoughts are laid out in the figure below. Some of the terminology is based on Carol Dweck’s growth mindset (see here for more details). There are definite parallels in and some areas I have simply adapted this mindset to make it more appropriate for science. It is definitely not a finished article and I would love your input. What do you think the characteristics of a Scientist’s Mindset are?
Note: Thanks to Nicki Hambleton and Kirstie Parker for their thoughts on creativity and divergent thinking, which I have now incorporated into the “Scientist’s Mindset”.
Most chemistry syllabuses (at both 14 to 16, and 16 to 18 ages) tend to have a variation on the following topics:
Acids and Bases
Within each of these clearly defined topics there will be benchmarks that outline very specific things that students must know. This is great for ensuring a level playing field and making sure that all students cover lots of content. However, for me, it misses a trick.
I believe there are a few fundamental concepts in chemistry that all students must know if they are ever going to be able to become cutting edge chemists.
I call these fundamental concepts the “Heart of Chemistry”, as without them, the rest of chemistry is unexplainable:
Particles in the atom
Electrostatic Forces of Attraction
Conservation of Mass and Energy
I will now deal with each of these individually.
At the heart of chemistry is the atom. Yet, they don’t really exist in their pure forms. Atoms are incredibly unstable, owing to their unpaired electrons. Given the chance, they will immediately react with other substances to form molecules and lattices. Students must be introduced to this idea as they learn about the atom. The atom is just a human construct that helps us to work out how different elements will interact. They are pieces of jigsaw that cannot work on their own (apart from the noble gases, of course).
Particles in the atom
For students to understand chemistry, they must know and understand the particles that make up atoms: protons; neutrons; and electrons.
Electrostatic Forces of Attraction
Students must understand the concept of electrostatic forces of attraction. They should understand early on that this involves an attraction between something that is negative and something that is positive. At this point, it would be good to bring in the idea that electrons are held in atoms by electrostatic forces of attraction between the said electrons and the protons in the nucleus. Electrostatic forces of attraction will then be an extremely useful concept for further studying in chemistry.
A fundamental concept that I think students need to be introduced to extremely early on is the second law of thermodynamics which states that entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated system. In the case of chemistry, we treat the universe as being the isolated system. So the universe tends towards disorder. In terms of chemistry, the entropy of the universe is the sum of the entropy of a reaction and the entropy of the surroundings, demonstrated in the diagram below. In most chemical reactions, energy is released to the surroundings, making them more disorded. This makes the atoms from the reaction become more ordered since they now have less energy and are more stable. This notion that particles in reactions tend towards stability, which releases energy to make the surroundings more disordered is extremely important. I also think it’s important that students realise that entropy can be determined experimentally.
The Conservation of Mass and Energy
This is very much linked to the ideas included in entropy. In the universe, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. The same can be said for chemical reactions. The energy and matter that goes into a reaction must ultimately come out. The only difference is its form. Atoms will rearrange. Energy will change from chemical potential to heat (or vice versa). This is crucial for students to understand.
At its heart, chemistry is about understanding bonding. This is what makes chemists tick. Without understanding bonding, the rest of chemistry doesn’t make sense and has no value. Here, we make sense of how atoms don’t exist in the real world (or at least, they exist for extremely short amounts of time). Within bonding, I believe there are some fundamental concepts that must be taught in order for students to fully grasp what is at hand. The first is that of collision theory (typically taught in kinetics). In order for substances to undergo bonding, they must first come close enough together for electrostatic interactions to occur between the protons in one atom and the electrons in another. The next concept is how the electrostatic interactions between different atoms can lead to different types of bonding. (Note: It is important for students to grasp that categorising bonding into ionic, covalent and metallic is a generalistion that is open to exceptions but makes life easier)
By understanding these concepts before launching into a course, I believe students (and teachers) will gain a deeper understanding of and develop a greater love for chemistry, rather than just ticking the syllabus boxes. Indeed, I believe that a lot of the traditional units at this level are simply applications of these concepts so that we can make quicker and easier predictions about how reactions might proceed before we test them out.
A case study: energetics
Most chemistry courses will have a unit called energetics, and lots of students struggle with it each year. I believe this is because they don’t really see the point of it. Energetics, in essence, is just a tool. Once you understand what an atom is, what bonding occurs, that energy and matter must be conserved and that the universe tends towards disorder it is easy to see that energetics is just a quick and easy way of applying these concepts in the real world to real reactions. Below is my first attempt at looking at this. It is raw and far from perfect:
Topic in a typical energetics unit
Fundamental concept required
Exothermic and endothermic reactions
Entropy, Conservation of mass and energy, Bonding
Exothermic reactions release energy. This is because bonds are formed. When bonds are formed, unpaired electrons pair up and this process releases energy. This released energy helps increase the disorder of the surroundings and the universe. The converse is true for endothermic reactions. These are useful terms to use to make life easier.
Electrostatic forces of attraction, Conservation of mass and energy
In order for a reaction to occur, the bonds in the initial reactants must be broken. Bond breaking is endothermic and requires energy. You are breaking electrostatic forces of attraction and this requires energy.
Entropy, Conservation of mass and energy, Bonding
Enthalpy is a measure of energy per mole. If you understand that bonds are electrostatic forces of attraction, you can understand that energy must be required to break them. The energy required to break a mole of bonds is a form of enthalpy.
Entropy, Conservation of mass and energy, Bonding
These include techniques like Hess’s Law and Born-Haber cycles. If you understand that energy must taken in and given out during a chemical reaction and that overall, energy must be conserved in the universe, you can understand that mathematics can be used to work out the enthalpy changes that occur in a reaction.
How might this look over a typical chemistry course?
At this early stage, for simplicity, I will look at when these fundamental concepts might be useful over the course of a typical chemistry course with traditional units. An outline is given below. I have starred what I believe to be the most important fundamental concepts for each unit. I may be wrong, and of course, all concepts are important pretty much all the time. But humans cannot think of everything at once, so it is important to prioritise! (Note: As I made this diagram, I also got thinking that bonding could be removed as a unit and be covered in the fundamental concept of electrostatic forces of attraction. It could be replaced by a unit titled something like “molecules, lattices and giant molecular structures”.)
I would love to hear some thoughts on this. To what extent do you agree with this post and why? Are there any concepts that I have completely misunderstood? What might be something fundamental that I am missing? How might we organise and name units better? Any other thoughts?
Today’s post is a joint effort by Uzay Ashton (@UzayAshton, blog) and Louie Barnett (@louiebarnett123)
In today’s Tech Mentor meeting at UWCSEA, we were asked: “Do our students/peers know how to approach conflict?”. We were forced to answer yes or no (no sitting on the fence, arghhh!) and could use 8-10 words to explain our answer. No pressure! Here are our responses:
No, because they’ve not learned how to negotiate it
No. People struggle to approach conflict and need support to do this
As you can see, we both had similar viewpoints (phew, no conflict).
We then listened to an awesome podcast about conflict avoiders and conflict seekers, linked here. You can see our written notes about the podcast below:
We then had a 5 minute conversation on what we heard in the podcast. You can find the recording of this here.
This led us, ultimately, to have a few questions that we would love some help in answering!
How can we help community members see that it’s ok to experience conflict?
How can we help community members acquire the skills needed to approach conflict respectfully?
How can we help community members recognise whether they are conflict avoiders or conflict seekers and how might we be able to give them the tools to account for the negatives of each stance?
This poem, shared by my colleague at work today, speaks volumes to me about self-awareness. “Every morning” we greet a new arrival at our door. We learn something new about ourselves. This can make us feel amazing. But it can also make us feel awful. It can make us feel inadequate. It can turn our lives upside down. It can violently empty us of our furniture. However, the poem suggests that we should treat this as a positive thing. It will take us to a “new delight”. Learning more about yourself can be challenging, but it is important, and will ultimately help develop a better you.
The Guest House
This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.
A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.
Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they are a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.
The dark thought, the shame, the malice.
meet them at the door laughing and invite them in.
In the coming months, I will be looking to start investing in stocks and shares in order to plan for my retirement. In doing this, I plan to invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). You buy these through a company that buys a small share in several companies in a market for you. It is a great and sure-fire way to see an investment portfolio grow steadily over many years. However, I have one major issue with this: what if the companies whose shares are included in the ETF are unethical and socially irresponsible? What is their industry goes against my beliefs?
However, I have one major issue with this: what if the companies whose shares are included in the ETF are unethical and socially irresponsible? What is their industry goes against my beliefs?
A simple example would be an ETF that follows the FTSE 100 in the UK. If I bought an ETF like this, I would be investing (however small an amount) in BAE systems, a weapons manufacturer. I don’t want any of the money I invest going to support this.
Therefore, I am looking for an ethical ETF. Now, what is ‘ethical’ will differ from person to person and this muddies the water when looking at commercial products. This is exemplified by the MSCI United Kingdom SRI Index, which excludes companies involved in: Nuclear Power, Tobacco, Alcohol, Gambling, Military Weapons, Civilian Firearms, GMOs and Adult Entertainment. When looking at these, this article (link) by PensionCraft deals with this problem nicely, in my opinion:
“You may be looking at some of those categories and thinking, why is that excluded? For example nuclear power and Genetically Modified Organisms are, in my opinion, okay if properly regulated. In the US the five million members of the National Rifle Association would question the exclusion of civilian firearms. Members of the armed forces may question the exclusion of companies that produce military weapons. This highlights the problems of a pre-canned investment package: it won’t be appropriate for everyone. If you don’t agree with it, don’t buy it! You can always buy individual stocks and bonds which are in line with your own principles.”
Although I also believe GMOs are ok if properly regulated, I think I would still be happy to buy this stock. I can always invest in a GMO company if I really want to. I am more interested in buying an ETF that rules out companies that are in industries that I really do not want to invest in. However, this does bring up an important point. Just from a brief internet search, there are many ‘socially responsible’ or ‘ethical’ ETFs out there. Just because an ETF says it excludes certain industries doesn’t mean that everything it includes is great either! Also, what a company running an ETF determines as ethical might differ from what you believe to be ethical.
I guess what is required now is lots of research. If anyone has any tips, thoughts, or ideas, they would be greatly appreciated! Here are some questions to get you thinking:
What might your ideal ethical ETF not include?
To what extent is it our moral duty to invest ethically?
To what extent is it our moral duty to know and understand where our money is going? (does this also link to the idea of ethical purchasing of clothes, food etc?)
I hit a state of flow in my teaching today. For those that don’t know, flow is neatly explained in this TED talk (link).
I got lost in the lesson. Everything seemed to work. Why? The topic was interesting, and this great resource from Kurk Gesagt’s In a Nutshell series kicked it off (link). The video on What is Life? What is Death? stimulated so much debate it was unreal.
At one moment during the lesson, I looked out and what I saw amazed me. Some students were talking about AI. Some were writing blog posts on “What is life?”. Some were simply learning definitions. Some were adding to their padlets. All were engaged and moving forward with their learning.
As I go forward in my teaching, I want to make moments like these the norm. How do we do this on a regular basis…that is the question?
UWCSEA is working hard to utilize concept based teaching and learning (CBTL) at the school. It is an exciting journey and one that has already borne fruit for me personally. Through concept mapping units before I teach them, I have gained a greater insight into the connections between concepts that I am trying to teach. I have also had several lightbulb moments about the order in which I teach those concepts. Even better, it is useful for me as a tool or reflection. As I teach, I play around with the concept map and change the order based upon what worked and what didn’t. I then have a record of my learning for the next time I teach that content.
However, I have had several conversations with colleagues (who all seem to see the value in CBTL) about what a concept is. The general outcome is that no-one really seems to be clear. Joe Novak defines a “concept” as:
“ a perceived regularity in events or objects, or records of events or objects, designated by a label.”
The first time I saw this definition, I didn’t have a clue what it meant. I find it very cumbersome and the repeat of the terms ‘events’ and ‘objects’ makes it difficult to interpret. So, I thought I might unpack it a little bit and see what I come up with.
Unpacking the definition
There are several terms in the definition and I think it is important to be clear on what each one might mean. I will then try to turn the definition into some diagrams. I understand things best when they are laid out diagrammatically. It might also help you and it might not. Hopefully, the text will add some meaning. I will then use these diagrams to work through an example concept: the electron in chemistry.
So, firstly, what do these words mean in the definition? This is what I think:
What might it mean?
Every concept has a word that stands for it e.g. electron
Every concept is perceived to exist. We can sense it somehow.
Regularity in events/objects
A concept might have several events/objects within it and no matter where that concept is applied those events/objects still stand true and are unchanged. I think this bit is important to our understanding.
These are things that define the concept. They happen or exist.
Records of events/objects
Concepts can also contain several records of events or objects (not quite sure what this one means). Maybe it has something to do with experimentation or the writing down of events/objects so that we know they happened. Then they can be used to define a concept.
So diagrammatically it might look like this:
That concept can be applied to different subjects/situations/contexts with the label, objects, events, and records of objects/events remaining constant. Those things are still true for the concept. However, it is being applied in a different context. There is some extra meaning added to the concept by the context. Diagrammatically that might be represented like this:
So, what about a real life example? Take an electron. I would argue that it is a concept. Why? Because it has a label: electron. When I say that label, certain truths come to mind that are true for the electron no matter where it is. These are the objects, events, or records of objects and events. For example (disclaimer, there are certainly more things to add here and there may be debate about some of these facts, but I am keeping it simple for explanation purposes) an electron:
has a negative charge,
has a mass of 1/1840,
will exist at a quantized energy level.
has a symbol of e-
This can be represented below:
Without these things, it is not an electron. If these things change, then we have a different concept. So for example, if the relative charge is not -1 but is instead +1, we have a new concept which is the proton.
The electron could then be applied in different contexts and scenarios. For example, the electron could be in the first or second energy level. All of the universal truths about an electron still apply, but the context of it being in a different energy level has given it some slightly different meaning. The electron in the second energy level has more energy than the electron in the first energy level but it is still an electron. It still has a relative charge of -1, a relative mass of 1/1840, exists in a quantized energy level and has the symbol e-:
Now, I may have gone down a completely incorrect path here, but this explanation seems to make sense to me. I would be interested to hear some thoughts on this. Might I have it all wrong? What is your interpretation of the term concept?
If you like this model, maybe you can apply it to a concept in your own subject. I would love to hear about that too!
“People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it”
A recent experience got me thinking about how I might introduce my vision for learning in my classroom to my students and I believe that this idea from Simon Sinek helps immensely. In his TED talk on The Golden Circle (which you can find here), Simon discusses what he believes to be the main reason as to why some companies are astronomically more successful than others. Most companies know WHAT they do. Many will also know HOW they do it. But only a few might work out WHY they do it. Simon suggests that articulating the WHY is crucial. The diagram below gives a good overview of what he means by WHAT, HOW and WHY:
I believe that this idea could be applied to education by asking the question: how we get students to buy into their learning? A crude way of putting it is that at the start of the year we are selling a product to our students, and that product is our classroom. Indeed, they have to consume whether they like it or not, but it would be much better if they are willing participants who would also buy into our vision for learning. So, what was the experience that led me towards this idea?
A Humbling Experience
Having extensively explored self-directed learning, I settled on the idea of creating a classroom where students could learn at their own pace. My thinking was then that I should share this vision with my students so that they would buy into it and understand what I was aiming for. I, therefore, designed a lesson that would help me achieve this. What students essentially received was this:
I left the lesson thinking:
“Great, they all understand that I want to create a personalised classroom where they are able to work at their own pace and are supported by me if needed. They all realise that I’m not just going to leave them to their own devices to work through the curriculum but that through the year I will help them develop the skills and confidence that enables them to take ownership of their learning.”
It took my Head of Faculty asking to see me to share a concern a student had with this approach to make me realise that in all likelihood, this is not what could be taken away from that introductory lesson!
Looking back, it is clear that I had got a couple of things quite wrong:
I got the Why completely wrong. I missed the point. I explained why we should do self-paced learning, not why I want my classroom to be the way that I want it to be. The difference is subtle but important.
I introduced self-paced learning as the big idea. I now don’t think it is. I thought if students get that, then my classroom will transform. However, all they might think when you say that is “yikes, this guy is just going to leave me on my own!” Indeed, I don’t think students even need to hear the term. Self-paced learning is just one of the ways that I can achieve my Why.
So with that in mind, I have now set about trying to work out my very own Golden Circle. What is my why? How will I do it? What will I do to get it? After much deliberation, I think I have settled on a good starting point.
The WHY should be a purpose, cause or belief (see the diagram earlier in the post). My WHY is therefore an amalgamation of my own beliefs and those of UWCSEA (where I work and whose mission I believe in deeply).
“I believe that education can be a force to unite people, nations and cultures to build sustainable peace and everything I do in the classroom should help students embrace challenge and take responsibility for shaping a better world. I believe that students learn best when education is personalised and I will do my utmost to create an environment where that is the case.”
The HOW is something that makes an organisation special or different. If my classroom is an organisation, then the HOW would be the skills and qualities that students need in order to take ownership of their learning. For me, UWCSEA sums this up quite nicely in their own skills and qualities:
This and my own thoughts give me my HOW:
“How I do this is by developing the skills and qualities (see UWCSEA skills and qualities above) that learners require in order to take ownership of their learning so that their education becomes a journey of discovery, exploration and creation.
The WHAT is the product or services that an organisation sells. In my classroom, I take this to be my everyday lessons. WHAT do I do in those lessons that help my students to become self-directed learners who have ownership over their learning. Most of these things could occur in any classroom, just as any computer company can make a computer. What makes them special for me and my students is WHY I do them. So my WHAT is massive. There is so much that I will do in my classroom in order to achieve my WHY. The list is long and by no means exhaustive and requires extensive further thinking to determine how I pull everything together in day to day lessons. However, knowing what they are is a great starting point.
My WHAT includes: self-paced learning; genius hour (more info on that here); hyperdocs (see this website); the Launch cycle (check out this page); concept mapping; design challenges; maker projects; portfolios/blogs; mastery learning; mini-lessons; read-alouds; modelling thinking; collaborative work; sharing learning; and much much more.
As of yet, I am still unsure as to how to incorporate and integrate the learning tools from my WHAT into the classroom and use them effectively to engender a deeper understanding and acceptance of self-directed learning from my students. This is an on-going process and I suspect that it will be a gradual process. My hope is that this gradual process will be made easier and more effective if they know my WHY and buy into it.
I would love to hear your thoughts. Here are some questions for you to ponder:
How might you introduce a “grand” idea of how you would like your students to learn?
How do you ensure buy-in to your methods, even if they might seem completely alien to some students?
How do you introduce a complete change in how you teach? Bit by bit? In one go?