School Science Review
The ASE’s journal for science education 11–19
Editor Geoff Auty
Executive Editors
Book Reviews
ICT Reviews
Websearch
Editorial contact ASE
Andrew Welsh and Helen Johnson
Miriam Chaplin
Eliot Attridge
Silvia Newton
Jane Hanrott
School Science Review is published in March, June, September and
December and sent to all Ordinary Members of the ASE free of charge. It is
also available on subscription from the ASE.
Authorisation is granted by the Association for Science Education for items
from SSR to be photocopied for personal use or for the use of specific
students. Permission is needed to copy or reproduce for any other purpose
and requests should be addressed to the ASE.
The contents of this journal do not necessarily represent the views or policies
of the ASE, except where explicitly identified as such.
© Association for Science Education, 2011
ISSN 0036–6811
The Association for Science Education
Address College Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL10 9AA
Telephone 01707 283000
Fax 01707 266532
[email protected]
Websitewww.ase.org.uk
Advertising
Printing
Rebecca Dixon-Watmough 01254 247764, [email protected]
Holbrooks Printers Ltd, Portsmouth, England
SSR September 2011, 93(342)
1
Contents
School Science Review September 2011, 93(342)
5Editorial
7Letter
9 Science notes
9 The lock and key model versus the induced fit model of enzyme action Christopher Talbot
10 Teaching action potentials Christopher Talbot and Saengdao Philavane
13 Do footballs get heavier when you pump them up hard? Implications for climate
change Keith Ross
16 A problem on toppling Iain MacInnes, Stuart Smith and Geoff Auty
21 Parallelogram law demonstration J. C. E. Potter
26Helpdesk
31 The Clubbers’ Guide: New academic year, new science/STEM club? Linda Scott and Sue
Howarth
37Getting Practical – the evaluation
Ian Abrahams, Michael J. Reiss and Rachael Sharpe
45 Pagan biology at the Halloween Hop
Roger Lock
Send your pupils into the autumn term half-term holiday with a task that requires them to explore
more about the biology associated with Halloween
53 Birds do it, bees do it: evolution and the comparative psychology of mate
choice
Lynda G. Boothroyd and Edward McLaughlin
Recent research into two aspects of human and non-human mate choice provides accessible
examples for teachers covering the influence of evolution on behaviour
61 Do predators always win? Starfish versus limpets: a hands-on activity
examining predator–prey interactions
Cláudia Faria, Diana Boaventura, Cecília Galvão and Isabel Chagas
A hands-on activity about predator–prey interactions that engages students in a real scientific
experiment and that can be performed in the classroom
69 Microscale chemistry – a different way for students to do practical work
Mike Wooster
Microscale chemistry is sustainable, innovative and has several advantages over doing practical
work on a conventional scale
77 Chemistry – the big picture
Anne Cassell
A sound grasp of three structure types – solid crystal, liquid crystal and fluid – would give both
GCSE and A-level science students a broad understanding of their respective subject areas
83 Peak into the past: an archaeo-astronomy summer school
Daniel Brown, Natasha Neale and Robert Francis
The delivery and impact of an archaeo-astronomy summer school for students aged 9–13 years,
utilising local Peak District National Park monuments as an outdoor classroom
2
SSR September 2011, 93(342)
Contents
School Science Review September 2011, 93(342)
93 The secret of the winning streak
Thomas E. Woolley and Marcus P. F. du Sautoy
A number of games that can be demonstrated easily in the classroom and that allow students to
engage with mathematics through experimentation and formulation of strategies
101 Assessing ethics in secondary science
Michael J. Reiss
If ethics is to be taught in science lessons and subsequently examined, it needs to be assessed in
a way that is valid and promotes good learning; those responsible for examining ethics in science
courses can learn from how certain humanities subjects, such as philosophy, are assessed
113 Developing communities of enquiry: dealing with social and ethical issues in
science at key stage 3
Lynda Dunlop, Gill Humes, Linda Clarke and Valerie McKelvey Martin
The development of communities of enquiry to explore social and ethical issues in science with
students aged 11–14 years across Northern Ireland
121 What makes an exemplary teacher of science? The pupils’ perspective
Helen Wilson and Jenny Mant
In this large-scale research project, pupil questionnaires were used to identify science teachers
whose 12-year-old pupils were more engaged and motivated than the norm; the pupils’ views on the
practice of these ‘exemplary’ teachers were then analysed
127 Long-term memory and learning
John Crossland
A postscript to the two previous articles concerning recent developments in understanding how the
brain learns and the implications for learning in the classroom
133 Book and DVD reviews
140 Science websearch
144 SSR special issues
144 Advertisers index
SSR September 2011, 93(342)
3
Editorial Board and Associates
Editor
Geoff Auty
Editorial Board
Damian Ainscough, Blackpool, LEA
Richard Boohan, Gatsby Science Enhancement
Programme, London
Ian Carter, Poole Grammar School, Dorset
Mary Frost, Appleton School, Essex
Sue Howarth, University of Worcester
Susan Judge, Burnham Grammar School, Bucks
David Shakespeare, Square 2 Learning
Keith Taber, University of Cambridge
Robert Toplis, Brunel University, Uxbridge
Neil Walker, Dunottar School, Reigate
Janet Williams, Mayflower High School, Billericay
Editorial Associates
Jeremy Airey, National Science Learning Centre, York
Maria Bateson, Kiev, Ukraine
David Bowdley, National Schools’ Observatory
Michael Brimicombe, Cedars Upper School, Leighton
Buzzard
Sue Collins, Brunel University, Uxbridge
James de Winter, University of Cambridge
Shelly Dudley, Cranbrook School, Kent
Stuart Evans, Chepstow Comprehensive School
Rory Geoghegan, Irish Science Teachers’ Association, Dublin
Keith Gibbs, Schoolphysics, Taunton
Judy Griffiths, OCR examiner
Randal Henly, Dublin
Jon Heywood, University of Leicester
Stephen Hoskins, King Edward VI School, Southampton
Maria Kettle, University of Cambridge
Ian Kinchin, King’s College London
Vanessa Kind, NE Regional Science Learning Centre,
Durham
Chris King, Keele University, Keele
Ian Lancaster, King’s School, Macclesfield
Safeguards Committee Representatives
Peter Borrows, Amersham, Bucks
Phil Bunyan, CLEAPSS, Uxbridge
Joe Jefferies, Doncaster, South Yorks
4
SSR September 2011, 93(342)
Irfan Latif, Bedford School, Bedford
Sarah Mansel, Hadleigh High School, Ipswich
Robin Millar, University of York
David S. Moore, St Edward’s School, Oxford
Silvia Newton, Theydon Bois, Essex
Jonathan Osborne, Stanford University, California
Hilary Otter, St Swithun’s School. Winchester
John Parkinson, Swansea Metropolitan University
Dave Pickersgill, The Sheffield College
Mary Ratcliffe, National Science Learning Centre, York
Michael Reiss, Institute of Education, London
Allan Soares, University of Birmingham
Nicky Souter, University of Strathclyde
Zoe Spavold, Carterton Community College,
Oxfordshire
Christopher Talbot, Anglo-Chinese School, Singapore
Bernard Tedd, King Edward VI High School For Girls,
Birmingham
James Williams, University of Sussex
Joe Wright, The New School Rome, Rome
Editorial
The science notes start with two items from Chris
Talbot (one jointly with a colleague). Regular
readers will know that he is a frequent contributor
of short background items for advanced biology
and chemistry, and one of these manages to
apply some physics and chemistry to biology.
Keith Ross has posed a novel question to help
understanding of the fact that air has mass, while
Iain MacInnes posed a question about balancing
and stability, which leads to several mathematical
solutions. John Potter shows his inventiveness
with a demonstration of the parallelogram of
velocities, using models for exhibition. Many
teachers will have considered this problem
without a demonstration, as the parallelogram rule
is much harder to illustrate for velocities than for
static forces.
For the past two years, we have reported
on development of the Getting Practical
programme. Ian Abrahams and his co-authors
provide the final article to evaluate the progress
of this initiative, show how the methods have
been cascaded to teachers and indicate how the
effects should continue.
We start the major articles with Roger
Lock showing how to have fun with biology at
Halloween. Roger sent this item some time ago,
but wanted it published at this time of year. Lynda
Boothroyd and Edward McLaughlin consider
in a novel and entertaining way the selection of
partners, including human ones. From Portugal, a
team led by Cláudia Faria study the interaction of
predators and prey with a hands-on activity using
starfish and limpets.
Mike Wooster’s article on using a microscale
chemistry kit is an overspill from our ‘Smallscale science’ edition in March. In contrast, Anne
Cassell considers how to make chemistry teaching
interesting by looking at the effects of chemical
reactions on the Earth and beyond. Many of the
examples would need amplifying to suit your own
teaching, but there are plenty of ideas to work on.
With a rather clever title, Daniel Brown and his
colleagues describe a field trip based on astronomy
and archaeology, linked to aspects of geography,
ecology, physics, chemistry, religious studies and
more. An enjoyable out-of-school experience
stands out from the pages and much reinforcement
of learning will have been gained in this informal
setting. In an article we can describe as practical
mathematics, Thomas Woolley and Marcus du
Sautoy consider several puzzles including the
chance of winning the lottery. With our Clubs
section generally widened to include technology,
engineering and maths in addition to science
(STEM subjects), this seems a reasonable inclusion.
Two articles on ethics in science begin with
Michael Reiss explaining how this should be
included in science teaching and how we need
to find ways to assess this important area if it is
expected to find a regular place in lessons. Then
a group led by Lynda Dunlop in Northern Ireland
illustrates examples of teaching both social and
ethical issues to students aged 11–14 years.
We conclude with two items on the process
of education. Helen Wilson and Jenny Mant ask
‘What makes an exemplary science teacher?’
This is a question we should all ask ourselves
throughout our teaching without any need to
invent and quantify CPD. In the first of a two-part
offering, they present the student perspective.
John Crossland has studied the learning
mechanism from the viewpoint of brain activity.
His article about long-term memory follows two
other strands printed in these pages last year.
With no theme in this edition, we present a
broad collection of ideas that members want to
share. Something in there for everyone I hope!
On page 8 we again invite you to describe
what you are doing in science lessons or clubs,
whether studying the environment, world
telecommunications, sports or otherwise, in
an Olympic Games context, to feature in our
forthcoming special issue. Yes, there is still time,
but an early indication of your suggested content
would be appreciated.
That is looking forward to the next 9 months,
but I have to end by looking back and mention
that Professor Phil Scott’s name is missing from
our list of Editorial Board members. Sadly,
Phil died in July while on holiday in France. I
always appreciated his wisdom, knowledge and
experience when consulting board members.
Details of his other contributions to science
education (of which there were many) are in the
September edition of Education in Science.
Geoff Auty
Editor, School Science Review
SSR September 2011, 93(342)
5
Health & Safety
For all practical procedures described in SSR, we have attempted to ensure that:
l all recognised hazards have been identified,
l appropriate precautions are suggested,
l where possible procedures are in accordance with commonly adopted model risk assessments,
l if a special risk assessment is likely to be necessary this is highlighted.
However errors and omissions can be made, and employers may have adopted different standards. Therefore,
before any practical activity, teachers should always check their employer’s assessment. Any local rules issued by
their employer must be obeyed, whatever is recommended in SSR.
Unless the context dictates otherwise it is assumed that:
l practical work is conducted in a properly equipped laboratory,
l any mains-operated and other equipment is properly maintained,
l any fume cupboard operates at least to the standard of Building Bulletin 88,
l care is taken with normal laboratory operations such as heating substances or handling heavy objects,
l good laboratory practice is observed when chemicals or living organisms are handled,
l eye protection is worn whenever there is any recognised risk to the eyes,
l fieldwork takes account of any guidelines issued by the employer,
l pupils are taught safe techniques for such activities as heating chemicals or smelling them, and for handling
microorganisms.
Readers requiring further guidance are referred to:
Hazcards (CLEAPSS, 1995 or 1998, 2000 updates)
Topics in safety, 3rd edn (ASE, 2001)
Safeguards in the school laboratory, 11th edn (ASE, 2006)
Safety in science education (DfEE, 1996)
Preparing COSHH risk assessments for project work in schools (SSERC, 1991)
Hazardous chemicals: an interactive manual for science education CD2 (SSERC, 2002)
Be safe! Health and safety in school science and technology for teachers of 3- to 12-year-olds, 4th edn (ASE, 2011)
Contributing to SSR
We welcome contributions for all sections of School Science Review.
These can be emailed to The Editor, [email protected], or posted to The Editor, School Science
Review, ASE, College Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL10 9AA.
Detailed advice on the submission of articles and Science notes is available on the ASE website at:
www.ase.org.uk/journals/school-science-review/submissions.
6
SSR September 2011, 93(342)
Letter
Balloon pressure
I read with interest the article in SSR June 2011,
92(341) pages 20–21, ‘Estimating absolute zero
using a balloon’. The ‘skin pressure’ stated on page
21 as the main source of error can fairly easily be
estimated. Using a rule and spring balance, I found
that the surface tension of a piece of rubber cut
from a cheap balloon and stretched nearly to its
maximum was about 500 N m−1. So in a balloon of
radius about 0.1 m there would be a ‘skin pressure’
of about 5000 N m−2. This is indeed much smaller
than atmospheric pressure (100 000 N m−2) and
therefore can be neglected here.
Here is a practical challenge for the next time
you want to set your students a ‘different’
investigation. What is the relationship between
volume and pressure for a balloon?
Editor
Don Hinson, Chesham
[email protected]
SSR September 2011, 93(342)
7
Protected trade marks and designs:
The Olympic Games
are coming
What are you doing?
Tell us about activities in your science classes in the lead-up to the Olympics
or other items of relevance for our June 2012 edition
Contact the Editor of School Science Review to discuss your ideas:
ASE, College Lane, Hatfield AL10 9AA
E-mail: [email protected]
8
SSR September 2011, 93(342)
Draft proposals will be needed by the end of December 2011.