Subject Studies
Assignment
Ex
am
pl
e
A Study into Teaching Adaptation
and Competition to Year 9 Students
PGCE: Science (Chemistry)
Contents
Introduction and Context
3
Literature Review
4
Constructivism
4
Behaviourism
6
Cognitivism
7
Misconceptions
8
Assessment for Learning
11
Summary
13
Results
pl
Pre-test and initial planning
e
The Lesson Sequence
14
14
15
17
Lesson 2: Adaptation in Plants
19
Lesson 3: Competition in Animals
21
Lesson 4: Competition in Plants
22
Ex
am
Lesson 1: Adaptations in Animals
Conclusions
25
Bibliography
28
Appendix
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix-Pre-test 1
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 2- Lesson 1
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 3: Lesson 2
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 4: Lesson 3
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 5: Lesson 4
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Introduction and Context
This report focuses on the planning and teaching of a sequence of four 1-hour
lessons on the topic of ‘Adaptation and competition’ to a Year 9 class. These lessons
were taught at the end of a topic which in total consisted of 7 lessons. This topic of
‘Adaptation and competition’ is part of the AQA Core Science scheme of work as B14: Adaptation for survival, covering the National Curriculum Key Stage 4 (KS4).
The study took place at a large mixed comprehensive school for students aged 1118
The school has a total of
students on roll with
these with English as another language (EAL), and
of
of students receiving pupil
e
premium. Both of these are above the national average. In 2014,
of Year 11
pl
students achieved 5+ A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) including English and maths
am
GCSEs which was also above the national average.
In science, students are placed in sets, with 12 sets across two armsAlthough the sets are sorted by ability, they are generally ‘broad-setted’,
Ex
meaning the students are somewhat mixed ability but across 2-3 sets. Students
study KS3 science in Years 7 and 8, and begin the AQA Core Science content
during Year 9, and at the end of this year, students are able to choose to do Triple
science or continue to go on to do Double award science.
My class is
which is the top set on the
side of Year 9. The class consists
of 26 students with 13 boys and 13 girls. For the purpose of this study, codes have
been given to all students consisting of a number followed by B or G for boy or girl.
This report starts with a literature review including an analysis of the different
learning theories, research on students misconceptions on adaptation and
competition, and also consideration of ‘Assessment for Learning’ and how this can
be used. The review was carried out using literature found in King's College London
library, Google Scholar and general internet searches. When conducting general
searches, I initially searched for phrases such as “misconceptions in biology
adaptation”, “child understanding of plant competition” and “application of learning
theories” as well as the names of renowned researchers. From these searches,
further literature was found cited in various articles.
Literature Review
Whilst planning a sequence of lessons is pivotal to teaching any particular topic to a
e
class, it is also of high priority to also analyse the varying theories regarding how
children think and learn. Over time there has been extensive research into child
pl
learning, and this has led to different theories of learning. These theories have
am
allowed for development of many teaching approaches that not only support their
view on how children learn, but also support teachers in their practice and helping
children to learn. Three of these theories are to be discussed.
Ex
Constructivism
The theory of constructivism states that an individual’s learning is constructed based
on his or her own knowledge and understanding of the world around them via their
own reflections of these experiences (Hoover, 1996). von Glasserfeld (1991 p.118)
takes this further by implying that one’s learning is an offshoot of the culture
surrounding them. Jean Piaget (1952) conduced detailed research into the
development of children, and from this he put forward the theory that the mind of a
child learner develops in a series of stages as highlighted in figure 1. Whist most
children of the same age will be at the same stage, it is very likely that there will be
some children in my class that will be a stage behind the majority of the cohort. In
fact, Shayer, Kuchemann and Wylam (1976) stated that 80% (8000) of British
students in their study did not reach the Formal Operational stage by the age of 14,
pl
e
which is the general age of the class I am teaching.
am
Figure 1: Piaget’s Stages of Development. Piaget put forward the theory that child cognitive
development was through a series of development stages in sequential order, none of which could
be missed (Beck, 2000).
Piaget’s theory of stages in learning was very popular and also influenced others to
develop their own theories based on his ideas. Lev Vygotsky (1978) put forward the
Ex
idea that not only was there importance in the process underlying the development
of learning, but also that this was grounded in the learners social interaction-Social
Constructivism. Furthermore, Vygotsky (1978) also pioneered the idea of each child
having a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). This ZPD is an area that intersects
what is known by an individual and what is not known. In order to bridge this gap, an
individual will need guidance and encouragement from a knowledgeable person. As
a ‘knowledgeable person’, a teacher is able to push and stretch the limits of the ZPD
of an individual and this could be done through questioning or via the process of
‘scaffolding’ whereby a teacher is sensitive to the abilities of a child and is able to
gradually decrease the level of support to this child as his/her ability increases
(Wood and Middleton, 1975).
Although Piaget’s cognitive theory and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory both revolve
around the constructivist theory of learning, there are major differences between
them. Whilst Piaget’s theory states that cognitive development is mostly the same
universally, Vygotsky differs stating that cognitive development varies due to culture
and historical context. Furthermore, sociocultural theory believes that development
results from guided participation or social interactions, and that more knowledgeable
e
persons or peers co-construct knowledge. But, once again, cognitive theory
contrasts this as it states that each child constructs his or her own knowledge, and
pl
that development results from the child’s independent exploration of the world. On
am
these particular ideas, sociocultural theory appeals more to me and in the planning
of my lessons, I will try to incorporate some of these ideas especially the idea of
Ex
more knowledgeable persons or peers being used to construct knowledge.
Behaviourism
The behaviourist theory of learning is based on the Pavlovian principle of ‘stimulusresponse’. This theory not only assumes that the learner is passive, but also that
learners come as a blank slate whose behaviour can be moulded through positive
and negative reinforcement. Reinforcement (both negative and positive) will increase
the chance that previous behaviour will occur again, whereas punishment will
decrease this likelihood. Learning is therefore seen as a series of changes in the
learner and the work they produce. Skinner (1938) then furthered this idea with his
theory of operant conditioning. This states that the consequences of a particular
voluntary behaviour can reinforce or discourage that behaviour. In regards to
education, this has influenced the belief that positive feedback, comments and
encouragement from a teacher can help a child to further progress in an activity. In
practice this can be seen in a variety of different instructional models. The ‘direct’
model of teaching is a teacher-directed method, in which the teacher stands in front
of students presenting information. This method is usually desired when teaching
skills and the teacher must ensure that the topic to be taught is organised in a logical
way. Another model is the dialogic model which encourages the use of interactions
e
within the classroom that encourages students to think in different ways and also
pl
where questions asked questions invite much more than simple recall (Alexander,
am
2008). A third model is the didactic model which mainly involves lecturing and is also
Ex
fundamentally teacher-centred (Entwistle, 1997).
Cognitivism
However, the cognitivist theory of learning argues that the mind of learners should be
opened and understood, and the learner is viewed somewhat as an information
processor that can create “generic coding systems that permit one to go beyond the
data to new and possibly fruitful predictions” (Bruner, 1957 p234). Essentially, this
means that as child learners grow and develop, they acquire along the way, various
methods of representing “recurrent regularities” (Bruner, Wallach and Galanter, 1959
p200). This therefore places importance on creativity and the ability to come up with
concepts and ideas rather than how the environment around a learner has informed
this. Furthermore, in contrast to the passive role of a learner seen with the
behaviourist theory of learning, cognitivists believe that education is a tool that can
be used to facilitate a child’s thinking and problem-solving skills which can then be
applied to a variety of situations, and this leads to children being active learners who
are able to develop their own knowledge (Bruner, 1960). In addition to this, Bruner
differs from Piaget, as Bruner advocated the idea that development not a series of
stages, but rather a continuous process. This means that according to the cognitivist
view of learning, children of the same age in a class may be of many varying
developmental phases, and this can greatly impact teaching.
e
In general, it can be said that the different theories of learning (behaviourism,
constructivism and cognitivism) each have valid points that should be taken into
pl
account when thinking about how children learn. Personally, I tend to agree more
am
with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory as I believe that development does result from
the world and culture experienced by a child. However, an ideal of Piaget that I will
try to incorporate into my lessons will be the importance of peers, as children must
Ex
learn to take peers’ perspectives. Furthermore, I will definitely incorporate the use of
positive feedback, comments and encouragement in order for children within my
class to progress further. Other than this, there are not any aspects of behaviourism
that I agree with as I strongly disagree with the fundamental behaviourist idea that
students are passive in their learning. This disagreement of seeing students as
passive learner is similar to the cognitivist theory of learning as this theory sees
education as a way to facilitate a wide range of problems that may be encountered
during one’s lifetime.
Misconceptions
On the topic of Adaptation and Competition, the National Curriculum states that
pupils in KS4 should know how:
“Organisms are interdependent and are adapted to their environment” (NC, 2007
p224)
This gives a loose guideline of what to teach, however the AQA GCSE Biology
Specification (2014) does give more detailed information on what student must be
aware of for the exam. Adaptation and Competition is a concept that, at the surface,
students seem to be able to somewhat comprehend. However, when probed deeper,
these students hold similar misconceptions that can impact their understanding of
the concept when taken to a further level.
e
Misconceptions about Adaptation and Competition in students tend to form around
pl
the general idea that organisms can adapt to any change in their environment if they
need to (Driver et al., 1994). Engel Clough and Wood-Robinson (1985) conducted a
am
study with 84 students aged 12-16 in order to gain insight into their understanding of
the topic of adaptation. They found that these students were able to explain
adaptation in “teleological and anthropomorphic terms” (p125). This finding was
Ex
similar to those of Deadman and Kelly (1978) whose students also saw adaptation in
a teleological sense and a way of satisfying an organisms need and desire to fulfil
specific requirements. These findings are very much applicable to my class of 13-14
year old boys and girls.
Furthermore, students also seem to have much confusion between an organism’s
adaptation during its lifetime and hereditary changes found in a population over a
period of time (Driver et al., 1994; Lucas, 1971). This is supported by Deadman
(1976) whose study suggested that students under the age of 14 had a tendency to
describe adaptation as features (or end products) of a change in response to any
environmental change experienced by an organism. Furthermore Brumby (1984)
found that over 80% of Australian and English post ‘A’ Level students were not able
to correctly state the Darwinian process of selection to evolutionary change and they
often gave the Lamarckian interpretation instead. This shows that the Lamarckian
view of Adaptation is continually perpetuated amongst students even after they have
studied the topic further than the class I will be teaching, and also highlights the
importance of dispelling the ideas and misconceptions early on in order to not hinder
these students as they take their education further.
Different learning theories suggest different explanations of how misconceptions are
e
formed in children. For example, behaviourists do not deem misconceptions and
errors important, as students’ current understanding of concepts are not seen as
pl
relevant to learning but rather something that can be deleted and corrected (Strike,
am
1983). In contrast to this, the constructivist perspective would consider
misconceptions to be vital to learning, as students previous ideas are thought to
interact with new concepts and influence any new learning that may take place.
Ex
In fact, in science education, the term ‘Alternative frameworks’ was coined by Driver
and Easley (1978) in order to describe students’ knowledge before or after exposure
to relevant science instruction. These alternative frameworks can play a vital role in
the classroom as there is often a discrepancy between these frameworks and the
instruction whilst learning science (Nussbaum and Novick, 1982). Interestingly,
Driver noted how selected ideas proposed by children were somewhat similar to
historical scientific ideas (1983, p.76). This correlates with the main
misconception/alternative framework that children have being the idea that
adaptation in organisms follows the (now discredited) Lamarckian theory of
adaptation.
Assessment for Learning
Assessment for Learning is a term coined by Black and William (1998) in order to
describe a method in which a teacher is able to increase and also monitor the
learning taking place in their classroom. Assessment for learning is stated as “any
assessment for which the first priority in its design and practice is to serve the
purpose of promoting pupils’ learning” (Black and Harrison, 2004 p.i). A review of
the literature was done which found that AfL was able to increase achievement
levels with an increase of 0.4 to 0.7 effect size (Black and William, 1998). Further
work was done with a large study of classes taught by 19 different teachers in
am
1. Questioning and dialogue
pl
Assessment for Learning:
e
England, which went on to highlight the need for changes in four areas regarding
Questions need to be of a high quality in order to properly gain the information
necessary about student learning. The use of open-ended questions not only allows
Ex
for students to apply and link ideas and reasons that may relate to the question, but
it also means that students will have to “ask themselves further questions to qualify
what the original question is actually asking them to explain” (Black and Harrison,
2004).
2. Feedback
Feedback to students via marks alone, often does not give an indication of the
learning done in class. Black and Harrison (2004) found that teachers often try to
compromise this by giving marks as well as a comment, but in fact Butler (1987)
found in this situation, students tend to gravitate only towards the mark and totally
ignore whatever comment the teacher had written. Therefore effective formative
feedback should contain comments only and should be used as a way to create
dialogue with a learner to give advice on improvements that can be made.
3. Self- and peer-assessment
The use of peer- and self-assessment is very powerful as it allows students to gain
insight into how their work is analysed and also the criteria against which their work
is marked. Furthermore, it allows for students to gain an insight into how other
students go about answering the same question, in which they can take forward any
techniques or skills which they may not have previously possessed (Black et al.,
pl
4. Formative use of summative tests
e
2002).
am
This is usually done at the end of a topic or unit, and generally in preparation
towards an external examination. However, there is an increase in the use of
summative assessments in the form of pre-tests in order to identify any
Ex
misconceptions that students hold before the start of a new topic, and to see if these
have been corrected after teaching has taken place.
However, AfL should not be seen as a theory in itself but rather the result of an
amalgamation of research conducted into learning and encompasses various
aspects of different learning theories. In truth the AfL process has previously been
described as ‘an active, social process, in which the individual makes meaning which
is best done by building what is already known’ (Stobart, 2008 p.150). This highlights
the fact that the process brings together ideas from the behaviourist theory as well
as the social constructivist. All in all, the interactive learning environment that these
theories promote, can definitely help to not only shape but also guide and direct the
steps that will enhance learning in the AfL process.
Summary
Overall, it can be said that although the different learning theories cognitivist,
behaviourist and constructivist are all different, I believe that each of them do have
e
aspects that can work well in a classroom. Whilst constructivists would argue that
pl
students develop in discrete stages irrespective of the world around them, social
constructivists would say that that the social and cultural world around the student
am
would definitely have an impact on the development of the child. I personally agree
with this as I believe that what one has been exposed too can definitely affect (either
positively or negatively) the development and therefore learning of a student. In the
Ex
planning of my lessons, I will have to take this into account I will be discussing
organisms and features of organisms that students might not have been aware of.
Furthermore, the misconceptions that students may have about adaptation and
completion may mean that they might relate certain features of animals and plants
only to their function and what the organism needs. This means that further
explanation of adaptations and features that students might not have been aware of
needs to be clear and concise as not to introduce or reinforce misconceptions.
In addition to this, AfL needs to be used in order to ascertain the learning that
students are doing and if progress is being made in different concepts. This will
mainly be done through questioning, formative use of summative assessment and
peer and self-assessment. This will be done throughout the lesson sequence as it is
important to always have an idea of how students are doing and if some areas need
to be further explained for clarification.
The Lesson Sequence
Pre-test and initial planning
As my sequence of 4 lessons was to be taught at the end of the topic, the class was
e
set a pre-test at the end of the lesson before the first lesson was to be taught.
pl
Ausubel, Novak and Hanasian (1968) emphasised the importance of discovering
students’ prior knowledge. Therefore by assessing the knowledge that students
am
already have, a teacher is able to not only build upon this but also address any
misconceptions/alternative frameworks that students have. The test was designed as
a set of four questions each which addressed different misconceptions as noted by
Ex
Driver et al., (1994), Deadman (1976), Brumby (1984) and others. With the exception
of Q1, the questions were organised in a variation of a two-tiered test. Two-tier tests
were developed by Tan, Goh, Chia and Treagust (2002) and includes a tier 1
multiple choice question followed by another multiple choice question that elicits a
reason/justification (tier 2). However, as noted by Anderson, Fisher and Norman,
coming up with ‘clear and unambiguous test items’ (2002, p953) about certain
biological concepts can be quite challenging due to the use of words that are also
common in everyday language. Therefore in the design of these questions (Q2-4), I
took an idea used by Cetin-Dindar and Geban (2011) – a three-tier test. The use of
the third tier was used for students for students to explain their choices further if the
wanted to. Q1 however, was intended to identify the extent to which students were
able to identify the adaptations that animals have to help them survive in different
environments.
Results
The nature and format of the pre-test (Appendix 1) didn’t warrant for numerical
marks to be allocated, but the results were very telling.
For Q1, 25 out of 26 students identified the fact that the Arctic fox had thick fur in
order to keep the animal warm in its cold habitat. However, other than this, there
e
were varying answers for example STUDENT 10B wrote that the “desert fox has big
pl
ears to listen out for prey, predators or friends”. Similarly, 10 other students identified
the large ears of a desert fox as being needed for hearing. This alternative
am
framework agrees with the findings of Engel Clough and Wood-Robinson (1985) and
Deadman and Kelly (1978), previously stated where students view adaptation as
teleological and features present to satisfy an organisms needs. As students equate
Ex
ears to the function of hearing, they therefore reason that the bigger wars found on a
desert fox would be needed for increased hearing rather than the oversized ears
being used to radiate heat.
Answers for Q2 were not as varied with 13 students choosing a, 2 choosing b, 5
choosing c and 23 choosing d. As students were able to choose more than one
choice, the most common combination of choices were a and d. However, whilst a
may be incorrect, it is understandable why students may believe that cacti have no
leaved as they may correlate that the spines of a cactus are reduced leaves.
The responses to Q3 were interesting. 4 students chose c which correctly identified
that the polar bear would not adapt to the change in climate. On the other hand, 3
students incorrectly chose the incorrect answer of a stating that the polar bear would
be able to adapt to the change in environment. However, 19 students chose the
response of b, but I am not 100% sure if they wholly understood the wording of that
choice. In hindsight, the wording of the choice would be clearer to make it clear that
the offspring discussed is the first generation born to the polar bear. However, with
the wording of the question as it was, most of the class chose this response with
STUDENT 16B even stating for further explanation “A polar bear cannot adapt
straight away however after many generations their features will change for the
heat”. This therefore assumes that students do understand that adaptation is a
e
process that takes time and happens over many generations. However, I cannot be
pl
sure if that all students who gave this response were also thinking along the same
am
lines.
Q4 gave nearly an even split in the responses given by students. 15 students agreed
that plants do compete with each other for resources whereas the other 11
Ex
incorrectly said they do not. Of those that stated that plants do compete for
resources, most identified water, nutrients and sunlight being the main resources
that plants compete for. However, of the 42% (11) that stated that plants do not
compete there were differing reasons giving for why they believe this is the case. For
example, 6 students mentioned that plants obtain the aforementioned resources
“naturally” so there is no need for competition. Others such as STUDENT 4G stated
that resources such as “light is distributed equally, so there is no point competing for
it”. Similarly STUDENT 12G stated that “soil is everywhere, so their resources are
evenly distributed all the time”. STUDENT 23G simply stated that “plants do not
move so they cannot compete”. These responses show that there is not a great
appreciation and understanding of how plants work, and furthermore some students
may believe that organisms already have everything they need provided for them
‘naturally’.
Using these results, I was then able to plan lessons that were able to not only inform
but also alter and correct the alternative frameworks that students may hold.
However, from the results of the pre-test, it is clear that there were some students
who are quite knowledgeable on the topic and I so has to ensure that these students
were also able to be fully engaged as well.
e
Lesson 1: Adaptations in Animals
Lesson plan: Appendix 2
pl
As previously mentioned, the pre-test identified that most students were able to
correctly identify one adaptation that animals may have that allows them to survive in
am
extreme hot or cold environments. My plan was to introduce other features of
animals that allowed these organisms to adapt and survive in extreme environments.
A polar bear and camel were used as example organisms for extreme cold and hot
Ex
environments respectively. Although these animals are seen as the archetypal
animals for their respective environments, students were made aware that in an
exam they would be asked about animals that they were probably not aware of.
The starter (Appendix 2a) went down really well with students with none of them
being able to spot the snow leopard. Quite a few children were very confident in the
idea that was an example of camouflage. When asked why this was useful for the
snow leopard, STUDENT 1B gave the response of “so it can hide and escape from
its predators”. This was an excellent answer and he was told this. However, when I
further pushed the class for another reason, no one could come up with another. I
then told them that camouflage would also mean that its prey would also not see the
snow leopard coming.
After this, students then filled in the Note sheet (Appendix 2b) where there were
gaps and answer questions posed. All the information was present on the projector
via PowerPoint slide or given orally by me, This is a method that I had taken to using
with this class as I had realised oftentimes, students were very eager to copy all
information on the board but they actually has not digested the info given, thus
missing opportunities for students to ask questions for clarification. Although there
has been opposition to the use of the CLOZE procedure (Lazaraton, 2010), the use
here is not for language assessment, but rather in order to keep students engaged
e
with the work in the classroom.
The main activity was a great success that students seemed to enjoy, At first
pl
students were only writing the features that animals had that helped them to adapt to
am
their environment, however after prompting students they then included short
explanations as to why these features would help the animal to survive. When it
came time for students to feedback information to their partners, they seemed to
Ex
relish in the fact that they were now ‘experts’ and were able to pass on their
information to their partner. And as seen from STUDENT 22B’s work sample
(appendix 2f), equal amounts and quality were featured in both spider diagrams and
this was the same across the class.
In addition to this, a mini-debate occurred when STUDENT 15G asked “Miss, isn’t it
true that camels have water in their humps?” Instead of me immediately answering
the question, I asked the class who agreed and nearly all students put their hand up.
I then asked STUDENT 17B what he thought, and he stated that he disagreed “’coz
they have fat in them instead”. I then asked STUDENT 21G to use the info they have
been learning about to say why it would be useful for a camel to have a hump of fat
to which she correctly replied “because it can be used for food when there isn’t any
in the desert”.
The students then ended the lesson with an exam question (appendix 2g) similar to
that of Q1 in the pre-test. I was generally pleased with the responses to the question
with most giving two or more differences. Furthermore, as seen in STUDENT 26G’s
work sample (appendix 2h), when self-assessing their work, students also added
points that they may not have included.
Overall, I was pleased with this first lesson and I definitely do believe that the
e
inclusion of Piaget;s idea that children should be able to take peers’ perspectives as
pl
well as Vygotsky’s idea that development can occur from any knowledgeable person.
Both of these ideas were greatly steeped in the design of the main task in the lesson,
am
and I believe that the responses given in the exam question compared to the pre-test
showed that definite progress was made which may indicate that learning had taken
place. Furthermore, the use of AfL techniques such as questioning, dialogue and
Ex
self-assessment as highlighted by Black and William (1998) allows for the lesson to
progress and for students to gain an insight into how they could improve their
responses.
Lesson 2: Adaptation in Plants
Lesson plan: Appendix 3
I was generally pleased with the outcome of lesson 2; however there are definitely
aspects that I would have changed if I could do the lesson again.
When the students entered the class and saw a set of exam questions (Appendix 3a)
they immediately panicked and thought that it was a formal test with students saying
“Miss, I didn’t know there was a test today?” and “aww Miss, I didn’t revise though”.
However, once I assured students that they were not being formally assessed they
felt more at ease. During the time given for students to attempt the questions many
were complaining of not knowing the answer to questions which led me to say that
they were able to miss out only one question by putting an ‘x’ next to it. This also put
students a bit more at ease but there were still some complaints. If I were to do the
e
lesson again, I would’ve first allowed for the students to enter the class normally with
their books out on their desks as usual and then fully explain the task. This bit of
pl
familiarity would have possibly made the task less daunting.
am
Once again, I gave the students a Note sheet (Appendix 3b) which had a CLOZE
exercise in which they had to fill in a table identifying the adaptations of plants and
how this helps the plants to survive in dry environments.
Ex
When students were told that they were then able to add to or change their answers
once we had gone through the information, many expressed that they were very
happy as they wanted to change some answers. And in fact, after marking the
responses, it was found that every single student was able to add at least 3 marks to
their total after adding the new information that had learned in the lesson (Appendix
3c), with one student adding as much as 11 marks. However, I felt as though I
missed an opportunity for the class to be able to appreciate their improvement as I
did not ask students to do a total of their marks before and after adding the
information gained in the lesson. This was mainly due to the fact that I was aware of
the negative connotations that numerical marks have with students (Butler, 1987).
However, in this case, I felt as though this may have given students the ability to
further appreciate not only how many marks and extra information they were able to
add to the exam, but also how much prior correct knowledge they already had.
This lesson utilised a summative test in a formative way which is a key technique
highlighted by Black and Harrison (1998), and essentially the lesson included a preand post-test on a small scale and this has been argued to not only enhance student
performance, but also promotes self-regulated learning (Black et al., 2003) which I
pl
Lesson 3: Competition in Animals
Lesson plan: Appendix 4
e
feel can definitely help students in the learning process in the classroom.
I dedicated the first third of this lesson to students responding to the marking that I
am
have previously done. Whilst marking, used this opportunity to somewhat include the
concerns that I had regarding the activity in Lesson 2 and made sure that students
all looked at this again and responded to my comments. This was done very well by
Ex
students as seen in Appendix 4a. Further, some progress questions were set in
which students would have to look back over work done so far in order to answer the
questions. This was also done generally well with most students using their books
and each other as resources (Appendix 4a). This use of feedback is another AfL
technique highlighted by Black and Harrison (2004), which can definitely allow for
students to ascertain how they are doing at a particular moment in time. However,
looking back on my comments, I believe they could have been more detailed to give
the student more information. But all in all, the response was generally well
regarded.
When asking students about what they believe animals compete for, the class as a
whole could only come up with and explain two, mates and food. This immediately
let me know that student’s prior knowledge on this concept may not have been as
high as others. In order to fully introduce and demonstrate how animals compete for
different resources, I chose to use short videos. The use of videos as a learning tool
has been thoroughly research and in fact Bransford et al., (1990) promote the
constructivist idea of Anchored Instruction, in which some media (often a video) is
used to create an experience amongst learners which can always be referred to.
They explain that the video is use should be a short clip that is able to show an
e
example of the topic discussed, yet engaging enough that students would want to
pl
watch the clip repeatedly. This anchor should then be developed upon by the
am
teacher in by way of further explanation. This technique worked very well with the
class and many were asking questions that showed that they were intrigued and
interested in the videos. Furthermore, the work produced was of a high standard as
Ex
seen by STUDENT 2B’s work sample (Appendix 4c). However, due to the many
questions asked, I ran out of time to do the plenary and since the homework was
based on this, the student were not able to complete the homework set and the
plenary was turned into a starter for the next lesson.
Lesson 4: Competition in Plants
Lesson plan: Appendix 5
For this last lesson in the sequence, I used a variety of techniques that I used across
the sequence of lessons and I believe the students were able to make great
progress during the hour, especially as nearly half the class had previously identified
that plant do not compete, in the pre-test. The starter for the lesson was the
proposed plenary for lesson 3. At first there were no students that could correctly
identify that the milk snake was a mimic of the poisonous coral snake and even after
explaining this, the students then seemed puzzled, so I decided to use something
that would be more familiar to them with an anecdote:
“OK, so let’s say you went to the Tesco down the road and you bought and
ate an Egg and Cress sandwich but it gave you really bad food poisoning that made
you really sick. Would you go back and buy an Egg and Cress sandwich from Tesco
again?” The majority of the class then replied with “NO!”. Then I continued “OK,
neither would I. But let’s say you know go to the Asda in town, and you wanted to
e
buy a sandwich, would you by the Egg and Cress sandwich from Asda STUDENT
3B”. STUDENT 3B then replied with “No, ‘coz I wouldn’t ever want to eat that type of
pl
sandwich again to be honest”. I then continued “See, even it was Tesco’s sandwich
am
that made you feel ill, you’re not going to want to eat ANY Egg and Cress sandwich
because of that one experience. That is what happens to an animal that tries to eat
the poisonous coral snake. After the bad experience of eating that snake, it’s not
Ex
going to want to eat any other snake that looks like it so it won’t touch the milk snake
either even though it isn’t poisonous. Just like Asda’s sandwich, it might actually be
really nice, but because of your past experience it will stop you from trying something
else that is similar”
After this explanation, the whole class seemed as though they understood the
concept of mimicry.
Once again the use of videos to illustrate different concepts were used which
allowed for students to visually see plant competition occurring. This was important
as one of my main findings from the pre-test was that some students were not really
aware of the fact that plants compete for resources, and this is probably due to the
fact that they do not watch plants in actions as they would animals. Therefore the
use of short videos showing this was definitely very useful.
The main task was also completed very well, with many students reading thought the
information sheet (Appendix 5b) and being able to confidently answer questions.
However, in hindsight, this type of activity might not work as well as it did with a
lower ability class and the sheer amount of words on the page may have
discouraged lower ability students from engaging in this task.
During this task, I then showed another video that I had found on the Shared Area of
e
my schools drive about seed dispersal which I thought would help students to not
pl
only further answer some of the questions (Appendix 5c) , but also would show them
some of the concepts mentioned in the information in action. Every single student
am
was engaged and interested in this extra video and I was very pleased that I decided
Ex
to include it. However, this did take time from the plenary.
e
pl
Conclusions
am
The initial pre-test highlighted that my students held the major misconceptions that I
had found in my literature review, even if it was to differing extents. During the lesson
sequences, I was able to determine that students were beginning to successfully
Ex
understand and explain the various concepts concerning adaptation and competition.
There were some students who still relied on explaining adaptations of animals
based on the function of the feature (e.g. large claws to rip through meat). However,
it is commonly known that children’s misconceptions/alternative frameworks are
‘amazingly tenacious and resistant’ to being altered (Ausubel, 1968 p336).
Unfortunately, due to time restraints, I was not able to do a post-test with the class,
and this would have been helpful in determining if in fact learning had occurred, and
whether individual students had altered their misconceptions. However, with the use
of various AfL techniques, I was able to ascertain which students had progressed
and those may need more work. In particular, I believe that my use of rich questions
as described by Black and Harrison (2004), definitely stretched students and also
allows for me to be aware of how far students had understood certain concepts in
the topic.
I feel as though I was somewhat lucky that there was a clear scheme of work that I
was to follow to complete this part of the AQA Core Science GCSE specification yet I
had free scope to be as creative with my resources that I wanted to be. This
definitely helped, as I was aware of which parts of the specification I was to cover
and could use this as a guide in planning my lessons. Looking at my lesson plans in
e
particular, I can see that I could have included some differentiated tasks in order to
pl
cater to each ability in the class, however this was done by support and outcome
rather than task. In addition to this, I am aware of the fact that some of the activities
am
planned would not be suitable for lower ability students in particular tasks such as
that including the information sheet in lesson 4 (Appendix 5b). If these lessons were
to be taught to a lower ability set, there would definitely have to be some changes to
Ex
be made.
In general, I was satisfied that I was able to include as much collaborative work as
possible which allowed for students to interact socially and build upon each other’s
ideas (Vygotsky, 1978). This especially worked well in Lesson 1 where students
became ‘experts’ on a concept and then were able to feedback to each other in order
to tutor their partner on their respective concept. However, it is likely that this sort of
exercise would not work as well with other topics where there needs to be more of
an understanding of a key idea.
Furthermore, I believe that the use of videos was very useful where it was used.
Commonly, children are able to have developed idea about concepts they may have
experienced or previously seen and are able to build on this with further instruction .
However, with some of the concepts that were being discussed during the sequence,
the students did not have a clear picture of how these organisms would even go
about carrying out some of the actions discussed (e.g. male deer locking horns).
Therefore, using short video clips as an anchor to which students can always refer
back to (Bransford et al., 1990) is a great way for student to be able a concept with
previous experiences. Furthermore as Shayer, Kuchemann and Wylam (1976)
stated, up to 80% of students would not have reached the Formal Operational stage
described by Piaget (1952) by age 14. This means that it is very well possible that
e
most of the students in my class may not able to logically reason with concepts that
pl
are abstract to them. Therefore the use of visuals is a tool that allows for them to be
am
able to make links with the information they have been taught.
Overall, it can be said that on the topic of adaptation and competition, more may
need to be done by science educators in order to determine how misconceptions
Ex
held by children in this topic can be dispelled. I believe the main barrier can be the
use of language as previously stated by Anderson, Fisher and Norman (2002).
Words are used in this topic such as ‘competition’ that
is used in everyday
language, but children may not have ever thought to correlate this to animals and
most definitely not to plants. However, if science educators can look into how these
commonly used words and phrases can easily be transferred to a scientific setting, I
think not only teachers but also students may find it easier to get to grips with topics
such as adaptation and competition.
Bibliography
pl
edition), Dialogos, York.
e
Alexander, R.J. 2008. Towards Dialogic Teaching: rethinking classroom talk (4th
am
Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M. & Norman, G. J. 2002, “Development and evaluation
of the conceptual inventory of natural selection”. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, vol. 39, pp.952–978
Ex
Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D. & Hanesian, H. 1968, Educational psychology: A
cognitive view, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
AQA 2014,Specification Biology. [AQA Examination board, 2014], [Online].
Available: http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-BIOL-W-SP-14.PDF [2014, 01/02]
Beck, S. R. 2000, Child development, Fifth Edition. Allyn, Needham Heights, MA
Black, P.J. & Harrison, C. 2004, Science inside the black box: assessment for
learning in the science classroom, nferNelson, London.
Black, P.J. & Wiliam, D.A.R. 1998, Inside the black box: raising standards through
classroom assessment, nferNelson, London.
Black et al., 2002. Working inside the black box:assessment for learning in the
classroom. nferNelson, London.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D., 2003. Assessment for
learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K. & Williams, S.M.,
1990. Anchored Instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help: IN
Cognition, Education and Multimedia: Exploring ideas in High technology.Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersy, pp.115-141
e
Brumby, M. 1984. "Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical
pl
biology students". Science Education, vol 68, no.4, pp. 493-503
am
Bruner, J. S. 1957. Going beyond the information given. Norton, New York. p234
Bruner, J. S. 1960. The Process of education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
Ex
Bruner, J., Wallach, M. A. & Galanter, E. J. 1959. "The identification of recurrent
regularity", The American Journal of Psychology vol. 72, no. 2 p. 200
Butler, R. 1987. "Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: effects of
different fedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance".
Journal of Educational Psychology, vol 79, no.4, pp474-482
Cetin-Dindar, A.; Geban, O., 2011. "Development of a three-tier test to assess high
school students’ understanding of acids and bases". Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, vol.15, pp.600-604.
Deadman, J. A. 1976. "The structure and development of concepts associated with
the topic of evolution in secondary school boys" Unpublished PhD thesis, Chelsea
College, University of London.
Deadman, J.A. & Kelly, P.J. 1978. "What do secondary school boys understand
about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics?" Journal of Biological
Education. vol 12 no. 1 pp.7-15
DfE 2007, Science Programme of Study for key stage 4. (This is an extract from The
National Curriculum 2007). [Homepage of Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
e
2007], [Online]. Available:
pl
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131202172639/http://media.education.g
ov.uk/assets/files/pdf/q/science%202007%20programme%20of%20study%20for%20
am
key%20stage%204.pdf [2015, 01/02].
Driver, R., 1984, The Pupil as Scientist. Milton Keynes and Philadelphia: Open
Ex
University Press
Driver, R. & Easley, J.,1978, "Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to
concept development in adolescent science students". Studies in Science Education,
vol. 5, pp.61-84.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., and Wood-Robinson, V., 1994, Making sense
of secondary science: research into children's ideas. London and New York:
Routledge Falmer
Engel Clough, E. & Wood-Robinson, C. 1985. "How secondary school students
interpret instances of biological adaptation", Journal of Biological Education. vol 19,
no. 2, p125
Entwistle, N. 1997. Contrasting Perspectives on Learning. In The Experience of
Learning. Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education. Marton, F.,
Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, W.J. (ed). 2nd Edition. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh
pp 3-22
Hoover, W.A. 1996,"The practice Implications of contructivism", SEDL Letter, vol. 9,
no. 3
Lazaraton, A., 2010. "From cloze to consequences and beyond: An interview with
Elana Shohamy". Language Assessment Quarterly, vol. 7, pp.255–279.
e
Lucas, A. M. 1971. "The Teaching of 'Adaptation'". Journal of Biological Education,
pl
vol 5, no. 2, pp.86-90
am
Novick, S. & Nussbaum, J. 1982. “Alternative Frameworks, Conceptual Conflict and
Accommodation: Toward a Principled Teaching Strategy.” Instructional Science,
vol.11, pp.183 – 200.
, School Name: Ofsted Inspection Report, Ofsted, London.
Ex
Ofsted
Piaget, J. & Cook, M. 1952, The origins of intelligence in children, International
Universities Press, New York.
Shayer, M., Kuchemann, D.E. & Wylam, H. 1976, "The distribution of piagetian
stages of thinking in british middle and secondary school children", British Journal of
Educational Psychology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 164-173.
Skinner, B. F. 1938. The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis.
Appleton-Century, New York
Stobart, G. 2008. Testing Times: The Uses and Abuses of Assessment. London:
Routledge.
Tan, D.K-C., Treagust, D.F., Goh, N-K. and Chia, L-S. 2002. "Development and
application of a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument to assess high school
students’ understanding of inorganic qualitative analysis". Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, vol 39, no. 4, pp.283–301
von Glasersfeld, E. 1991, "Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching", In
M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy, and science teaching (pp. 117-132).
Teachers College Press, New York.
Vygotsky, L.S. & Cole, M. 1978b, Mind in society: the development of higher
e
psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., London.
pl
Wood, D., & Middleton, D. 1975, "A study of assisted problem-solving". British
Ex
am
Journal of Psychology, vol 66, pp.181–191