Subject Studies
Assignment
A Study into Teaching Limestone
and Carbonates to Year 9 Pupils
Subject: Secondary Science - Biology
1
Contents
Introduction and Context………………………………………………...…………….…….5
Literature Review………………………………………………………………...........…...6-14
Theories of Learning……………………………………………………...….…...…...6
Misconceptions about Limestone……………………………………………...………9
Assessment for Learning………………………………………………….….……....11
Conclusion of the Literature Review………………………………………..…….….14
The Lesson Sequence………………………………………...……...…………….…...…15-29
Pre-Test…………………………………………………...…...…………………......16
Lesson One……………………………………………………..……………….…....19
Lesson Two………………………………………………………..………….…..….21
Lesson Three……………………………………………………..………….…….....23
Lesson Four……………………………………………………..……………….…...25
Lesson Five………………………………………………………..………….……...27
Conclusion…………………………………………..……………….………………...…30-33
Bibliography…………………………………………..……………….………………....34-37
Appendix 1………………………………………………………..….……………..…….38-39
1.1 Lesson Sequence Outline……………………………………….………………..38
2
Appendix 2 (Pre-Test)…………………………………………...……………….….....…40-42
2.1 Pre-Test………………………………………………………...……….…….….40
2.2 Pre-Test Results…………………………………………………………………..41
Appendix 3 (Lesson One)…………………………………………………..…..……..….43-60
3.1 Lesson Plan……………………………………………………...….……………43
3.2 Resources………………………………………………...……………….……...47
3.3 Examples of Pupils’ Class Work…………………………………………………55
3.4 Examples of Pupils’ Homework…………………………………………………58
3.5 Photographic Evidence of Practical………………………………...….……...…60
Appendix 4 (Lesson Two)…………………………………………………………......…61-75
4.1 Original Lesson Plan………………………………………………….……...…..61
4.2 Amended Lesson Plan……………………………………………….…...………65
4.3 Resources…………………………………………………………….…...…...…69
4.4 Examples of Pupils’ Class Work…………………………………………………73
Appendix 5 (Lesson Three)………………………………………..………………...……76-91
5.1 Original Lesson Plan………………………………………….……………….…76
5.2 Amended Lesson Plan…………………………………………….…………...…80
5.3 Resources……………………………………………………………….……..…83
5.4 Table to Show Pupil Answers to the True or False Plenary Activity……………86
5.5 Examples of Pupils’ Class Work…………………………………………………87
5.6 Photographic Evidence of the Card Sort Activity………………………………..90
3
Appendix 6 (Lesson Four)……………………………………………………..………92-122
6.1 Original Lesson Plan…………………………………………….……………..92
6.2 Amended Lesson Plan…………………………………………….……………95
6.3 Resources………………………………………………………….…………...98
6.4 Examples of Pupils’ Class Work……………………………………………..110
6.5 Examples of Pupils’ Homework……………………………………….……..114
Appendix 7 (Lesson Five)………………………………………….………...………123-135
7.1 Original Lesson Plan………………………………………………….………123
7.2 Amended Lesson Plan……………………………………………….……..…126
7.3 Resources………………………………………………………….………….129
7.4 Examples of Pupils’ Class Work…………………………………………..…131
Appendix 8 (Post-Test)…………………………………………………………..…...136-137
8.1 Post-Test Results………………………………………………….………..…136
4
Introduction and Context
This assignment focuses on the topic of limestone and carbonates. It is one of the topics in
the AQA GCSE Specification for Chemistry (topic C1.2) (AQA, 2012) and also forms part of
the Key Stage 4 Programme of Study (DfE, 2014) which states that pupils should understand
‘the chemistry of acids: reactions with metals and carbonates’ and chemical industries. This
topic also provides an opportunity to develop skills in the working scientifically section of the
programme of study. (DfE, 2014).
The aim of this assignment is to evaluate the teaching and learning that took place in a series
of five 55-minute lessons about limestone and carbonates. The assignment took place in a
mixed comprehensive school for 11-19 year old students in
with a year 9
(aged 13-14) class of 25 pupils; 13 girls and 12 boys. The school has approximately
pupils of which approximately two thirds are from ethnic minority backgrounds, with a
higher proportion than the national average with English as an additional language (EAL) and
an approximately equal proportion to the national average with special educational needs
(SEN). All groups of pupils are fully included, make good progress between years 7 and 11
(ages 11-16) and achieve well in their GCSE examinations (
Students are placed into sets and class
).
is a high ability class that will be undertaking
triple science GCSE examinations at the end of key stage 4. Pupils in this school are placed
into key stage 4 sets firstly by the levels they achieved in their internal key stage 3
examinations and then by their ranking within that level. Pupils in this class all achieved a
level 7 in their internal key stage 3 examinations and are the highest achieving pupils within
this level. This class, however, is not the highest achieving within their year group.
5
Literature Review
To effectively teach the topic of limestone and its uses, it is important to research children’s
theories of learning to inform teaching practices and ensure that all pupils achieve their full
potential. Researching misconceptions and having an understanding of formative assessment
techniques are vital for assessing pupil’s learning and addressing misconceptions as they
arise.
Research articles were found through Google Scholar searches for misconceptions in
limestone and for key authors of learning theories and formative assessment techniques.
Further articles were found through references within these results. Book publications in the
Franklin-Wilkins library were also used.
Theories of Learning
Various theories of learning have been proposed, but the most popular of these are the
cognitivist theory of Piaget and the social constructivist theories of Vygotsky and Bruner.
Piaget (1964) indicates that learning is not spontaneous, but is triggered by teachers who
present the child with a phenomenon that their existing knowledge cannot explain, motivating
the child to accommodate the new knowledge to explain the phenomenon. Piaget believed
that children progress through four stages of development. At each stage there is an increase
in the intellectual abilities of the child. The third and fourth stages of development are
relevant to this assignment. The third stage is the concrete operations stage (children aged 7
to 12) in which children begin to understand number, ordering and geometry. The fourth
stage is the formal operations stage (children over the age of 12) in which children can
6
combine different concepts to reach reasoned conclusions. The ages at which children pass
into the different stages of development are not exact and depend on the child’s maturity,
physical experiences and social experiences.
In comparison, the work of Vygotsky (1978) and Bruner (1974) suggests that learning is
more related to the social environment the child is exposed to. This theory states that any
learning children undertake within the school environment has already been encountered to
some extent, usually in the form of language, and forms part of their preconceptions on a
topic. Teachers should consider these preconceptions, offering guided experiences to support
learning and develop knowledge, for example, showing the child how to solve a problem so
that they may imitate it. This is known as scaffolding.
This theory has been extended by Rogoff (1994) to include the sociocultural experiences of
the child.
Rogoff (1994) suggests that learning occurs through participation in shared
activities with a community of learners, in which children and adults are actively involved;
adults oversee and guide the learning whilst children manage their learning and involvement.
These shared activities occur both at home and in the classroom.
Consequently it is
important for teachers to understand these experiences to determine how to teach effectively.
Knowledge of a child’s cultural experiences ensures the teacher uses relevant examples,
increasing engagement and advancing learning. This also highlights the importance of group
work within the classroom to ensure that all pupils are actively involved in learning.
Vygotsky (1978) also developed the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as the difference
between what a child can accomplish on their own and what a child can accomplish with
support and guidance from a more knowledgeable person.
For example, if a child is
7
presented with a problem and asked to solve it, they should be able to, to their developmental
level (or mental age) without any assistance.
Vygotsky termed this their actual
developmental level. If a teacher were to provide some guidance, the child should be able to
solve the problem to a higher developmental level, termed their level of potential
development. The difference between their actual developmental level and their level of
potential development is their ZPD. Teachers should always challenge pupils at their level of
potential development to be most effective. The ZPDs of children in a class could all be
different, making it necessary to differentiate the guidance and activities to enable all pupils
to be challenged at their level of potential development.
An alternative theory is that of behaviourism, which focuses only on behaviours that can be
observed and does not consider what may be occurring in the child’s mind (Hohenstein and
Manning, 2010). There are two forms of behavioural conditioning; classical and operant.
Classical conditioning involves the association of two stimuli to form a new learned
behaviour. For example, if a child is humiliated in a classroom, they will dislike the lesson.
If this happens repeatedly, the child will associate the subject with being humiliated, resulting
in a dislike of the subject. Operant conditioning, motivates pupils through incentives and
punishments. Incentives such as praise for achieving well or putting maximum effort into
work, enforce good study habits, whereas punishments such as receiving detention for not
completing homework, result in pupils associating detention with not doing their homework
and ultimately do their homework. It is important for teachers to use both incentives and
punishments to encourage and motivate pupils so that they do not disrupt their own learning
or the learning of others.
8
Overall, a combination of these theories of learning should be adopted to be able to teach
effectively. An awareness of the stages of development and the characteristics of these stages
ensure that teachers do not expect too much or too little from pupils, however the ZPD
highlights the importance of differentiating activities so that all pupils are challenged.
Identifying social and cultural experiences assists in recognising preconceptions and how to
engage pupils, such as using examples that pupils have seen and know about. It is important
to include group work activities to expose pupils to sociocultural theories of learning. Finally,
knowledge of behaviourism indicates the importance of using incentives and punishments to
advance the learning of all children in the classroom.
Misconceptions about Limestone
Misconceptions and alternative frameworks are defined as any understanding that differs
from the accepted scientific understanding or the intended learning outcome. (Driver, 1981,
Nakhleh, 1992). They occur when pupils have prior knowledge of a concept that cannot
explain new phenomena. Rather than accepting the new information and adapting their
knowledge, they connect it to the knowledge they already have. Consequently it is important
to disprove a pupils’ prior knowledge and scaffold their learning for pupils to accept the new
information (Driver, 1981).
Many misconceptions stem from the chemistry triplet (Talanquer, 2011), in which chemistry
is taught and understood at three levels; the macroscopic level at which phenomena are
experienced; the submicroscopic level at which phenomena are explained; and thirdly the
symbolic level in which symbols are used to represent concepts. Talanquer (2011) suggests
that pupils learn at the macroscopic level, whereas it is taught at the submicroscopic and
9
symbolic levels. He indicates that misconceptions arise from teachers’ inability to guide
pupils between the levels. In this assignment pupils need to understand calcium carbonate at
all three levels; firstly the uses of limestone and the phenomena of acid rain; secondly the
limestone cycle; and thirdly the chemical equations.
Research (Kortz and Murray, 2009) indicates that pupils (aged 20) have misconceptions
about rock formation. One pupil suggests that (p.305) “limestone is sticky and soft, attracting
shells to it. It slowly hardens overtime because it dries and the calcium in it hardens.” This
lack of understanding has also been noted by Driver et al. (1994). Kortz and Murray (2009)
suggest pupils believe limestone forms only when oceans evaporate, rather than forming at
the bottom of the ocean from dead organic matter. This is significant to this assignment as
pupils will need to understand limestone formation to develop knowledge of its properties
and uses in later lessons. Research (Dove, 1998) suggests that not using everyday (or social)
language when discussing rock formation helps prevent pupils developing these
misconceptions indicating that pupils learn effectively through social and cultural experiences
as discussed above, potentially resulting in alternative explanations.
Research about acid rain (Dove, 1996), suggests that student teachers (who might pass
misconceptions onto pupils) do not understand that limestone reacts with acid rain to form
soluble hydrogen carbonate which evaporates leaving caves and potholes.
Instead they
believe limestone is a softer rock than others and therefore less resistant to weathering. This
links with the misconception about limestone formation indicating the importance of
understanding this concept.
10
Research indicates that pupils have misconceptions about chemical equations; an important
part of the limestone teaching sequence. A review by Garnett, Garnett and Hackling (1995)
summarises these misconceptions. Pupils believe that chemical equations do not represent
reactions or the rearrangement of atoms nor do the equation coefficients represent the
numbers of each molecule involved.
Pupils also have difficulties understanding the
difference between coefficients and subscripts in equations (Marais and Jordaan, 2000).
These misconceptions indicate that pupils have difficulty understanding at the macroscopic
level because they do not understand the submicroscopic or symbolic levels. It also specifies
that if students write a balanced chemical equation, they cannot explain it at the macroscopic
level (Davidowitz, Chittleborough and Murray, 2010).
In order to address these, Marais and Jordaan (2010) suggest pupils define the meaning of the
symbols used in a glossary. Davidowitz, Chittleborough and Murray (2010) suggest using
diagrams that represent the submicroscopic level of the equation to aid understanding,
providing an opportunity to navigate between the submicroscopic and symbolic levels.
Assessment for Learning
Assessment for learning (AfL) is any assessment used to modify teaching and promote
pupils’ learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Black and Wiliam, 2010). It consists of two
activities; the first that pupils acknowledge a gap between what they know and what they
want to know and the second is the action they take to change that (Black and Wiliam, 1998).
Evidence shows that effective AfL raises attainment in pupils (Black and Wiliam, 2010) and
is more effective for pupils with lower attainment, reducing the range of achievement. AfL
practices include questioning, feedback and self- and peer-assessment (Black et al., 2004).
11
Questioning
Questions in science teaching come in two forms; low order and high order. Low order
questions require pupils to recall information and help them remember scientific language
(Black and Harrison, 2004). High order questions are those that require the pupil to use their
understanding and apply it to new situations. They require the pupil to think and respond
with one or two sentences (Black and Harrison, 2004) and, in science, are more effective in
helping pupils to learn. Two ways for teachers to use questioning effectively are to increase
wait time and allow pupils to discuss their thoughts with their peers before accepting an
answer (Black et al., 2004). Both result in pupils offering a more in depth answer which
others build on, relating the new content to their prior knowledge and enhancing their
learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998) through a community of learners as previously discussed.
Feedback
Feedback can be given to pupils both orally and in writing, but in science the most common
method is through writing (Black and Harrison, 2004). Research has shown that giving a
grade has a negative impact on pupil learning (Black et al., 2004; Black and Harrison, 2004).
Low attainers give up trying as they consistently get low marks and high attainers do not
improve as they have no challenge. Within a classroom setting, grades can produce a
competitive environment which is not productive for learning (Black and Harrison, 2004). If,
however, no marks are written on pupils work and only comments, pupils learn how to
improve their work and their learning is enhanced (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Black et al.,
2004). The comments system has led to a change in the types of activities in lessons to those
that require pupils to explain concepts, so teachers have the opportunity to comment on work,
12
access the misconceptions pupils have and alter their teaching accordingly. Consequently,
the lessons in this assignment all involve activities in which pupils need to discover the
concept for themselves and explain it, rather than simply copying from the board.
Self- and Peer-Assessment
The ability of pupils to self-assess their work is essential for them to become effective
learners (Black et al, 2004; Black and Harrison, 2004). In order to do this, they need to have
a clear understanding of what they need to achieve. One method of encouraging selfassessment is the thumbs up, thumbs down system, in which pupil’s rate between thumbs up
or thumbs down depending on how well they have understood it. If many students choose
thumbs down, the teacher knows to revisit the topic to clarify understanding.
Peer-assessment forms part of pupils learning to self-assess. Pupils are able to comment on
another pupils work and are more open to accepting such comments from their peers
compared to those from a teacher (Black et al., 2004). This highlights to pupils where they
can improve their work and they begin to see these improvements for themselves (Black and
Harrison, 2004). Over time, pupils adjust their learning and their attainment is raised. Peerassessment also encourages pupils to ask each other for explanations when they do not
understand, which enhances the learning of both the pupil who asked the question and the
pupil doing the explaining (Black et al., 2004).
13
Conclusion of Literature Review
The literature review has highlighted that there are many things to consider when teaching
this topic including that the students will be a mixture of two stages of development and to
teach effectively all children should be challenged at their level of potential development,
indicating that differentiation is an important aspect of teaching effectively.
This also
suggests that a variety of teaching approaches are necessary, such as group work,
questioning, encouragement and scaffolding. The review also highlights key misconceptions
that must be addressed to teach this topic effectively and that formative assessment is an
essential aspect for informing teaching to develop learning.
14
The Lesson Sequence
Before I could plan the individual lessons in this sequence, I needed a clear understanding of
the direction of the topic and how I wanted the pupils to progress through it, so that the topic
had a logical sequence. If it was not logical, then it would not make sense to the pupils. I
decided to begin by gaining an understanding of their knowledge of rocks, sedimentary rocks
in particular, so that I could ‘start from where the learner is’ (Black and Harrison, 2004, p. 4)
and use scaffolding techniques (Bruner, 1974 and Vygotsky, 1978) to support their learning
further. It made sense to follow this by introducing limestone, what it is made of and how it
is formed.
There were two main areas in this sequence left to place; the decomposition and reactions of
limestone; and quarrying and uses of limestone. I decided to teach thermal decomposition
and reaction of carbonates first and then move on to the uses of limestone and quarrying. The
reason for this is that when introducing limestone, I wanted to address the misconception,
identified in the literature review, that pupils believe limestone is soft and sticky and not a
solid rock. I wanted to continue with the concept of limestone being solid and address the
misconception surrounding solids reacting to produce a gas. This forms a logical sequence
with the reaction of carbonates. This also produces a sequence of lessons that begins at the
macroscopic level and guides pupils through the submicroscopic level to the symbolic level.
When planning these lessons, I felt that it was a very abstract chemistry topic. For example,
the specification (AQA, 2012) states that pupils should understand (p.12) ‘calcium carbonate
can be decomposed by heating’ and (p.13) ‘carbonates react with acids to produce carbon
15
dioxide.’ I felt that pupils would understand these concepts more completely, if they could
visualise them. Consequently, my lesson plans include experiments to assist with this.
On consideration of the literature review, I will explain how I planned each lesson in the
sequence and the AfL techniques I planned to use to gain an insight into pupils
understanding; including questioning, listening to pupils discussions, thumbs-up, thumbsdown voting and true or false quizzes. The lessons also include the use of self and peerassessment to encourage independent learning because one of the key principles identified by
Black and Harrison (2004) is that (p. 4) ‘learning must be done by them [pupils], it cannot be
done for them.’
Throughout the sequence, books were marked using comments as this was identified in the
literature review to enhance pupil’s learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Black et al., 2004).
However, the school’s policy is to give pupil’s grades and so to work within school policy, I
gave pupil’s a grade at the end of the sequence after all learning on this topic would have
taken place.
Pre-Test (Appendix 2)
The literature review highlighted that pupils have already encountered the learning they
undertake in the classroom (Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, I designed a pre-test (Appendix
2.1) consisting of true or false statements which would be easy for pupils to complete. Each
statement reflected the subject content learning outcomes of the lessons and addressed
misconceptions identified in the literature review. Given that pupils have not been taught
about limestone in school, I anticipated the results to reveal that pupils do not have a
16
scientific understanding of this topic and consequently, assist me with planning later lessons
in the sequence.
Test Results (Appendix 2.2)
Twenty pupils were present and participated. All pupils ticked whether the statement was
true or false or they didn’t know. However, many pupils did not give evidence for why they
believed that. I assume, because they do not know why.
The first statement was intended to discover if pupils knew what limestone was made of. It
identified that 15 pupils knew this, but couldn’t explain why they knew this. One pupil
thought that limestone was made of lots of minerals, rather than just calcium carbonate, and
therefore it must be a true statement. Statement 9 was designed to understand whether pupils
believe limestone forms only when oceans evaporate (Kortz and Murray, 2009). It received a
mixed response from pupils, 7 believed it is true, 5 believed it is false and 6 did not know.
One pupil stated that ‘it can be found near the sea’ indicating that pupils may not understand
the statement. Therefore, I believe this statement could be rephrased to state ‘limestone is
formed in the sea’ to gain a better understanding of pupils’ beliefs.
Statement 3 continued with the theme that limestone is solid to identify whether pupils held
the misconception that it is ‘sticky and soft’ (Kortz and Murray, 2009, p.305). It received a
mixed response from pupils, with 9 believing the statement is true, 7 that it is false and 4 who
do not know. One pupil who believed it was false stated that ‘limestone is a very crumbly
material’ suggesting that students do hold this misconception. Statements 7 and 8 attempted
to address whether limestone can be used as a building material with only 7 and 6 pupils,
17
respectively, believing it was true. One pupil stated that ‘limestone is used for buildings
already’ indicating that they may not believe that limestone can be used to make other
building materials.
The result of statement 4 suggests that pupils do understand that limestone can be damaged
by acid rain but that they do not understand how or why. This indicates that pupils do hold
the misconception identified by Dove (1996) and will need to be addressed during the
lessons.
Statement 5 produced some interesting results with 12 pupils believing it to be false.
Although they are correct in thinking this, their evidence included ‘limestone isn’t made of
limes’ and ‘limewater is made from limes.’ This indicates that pupils have no understanding
of the limestone cycle. Therefore, I intend to spend a large proportion of a lesson addressing
this and ensuring that pupils do understand that limewater is part of the limestone cycle and
not a substance made from limes.
Statement 6 was designed to understand whether pupils have misconceptions about equations
(Garnett, Garnett and Hackling, 1995) and that coefficients and subscripts represent the
relative number of atoms involved (Marais and Jordaan, 2000). Balancing equations was
previously covered by this class, however, I wanted to identify whether they still had these
misconceptions and whether I needed to address them again in the context of limestone. The
results indicate that 10 pupils did not know whether the statement was true or false and
consequently, I will re-address balancing equations during this sequence.
18
The results of the pre-test show that pupils do have the misconceptions identified in the
literature review.
They also indicate that pupils already have some understanding and
experience of the topic from a non-scientific perspective. I will need to take this into account
when teaching the topic and ensure that I address the misconceptions they have.
Lesson One (Appendix 3)
The pre-test was completed at the beginning of this lesson, so I wasn’t aware of pupils’ prior
knowledge and misconceptions when planning.
However, I intended that pupils would
understand what limestone is made of and how it is formed and overcome the misconception
that solids cannot react and produce a gas.
After the pre-test, I highlighted their learning objectives for the lesson and asked pupils to
write down what they definitely already knew about them, thought they knew about them and
what they didn’t know. I wanted them to have something to refer back to at the end of the
lesson, when I asked them to self-assess what they had learnt and what further questions they
had. It would also ensure that they acknowledged a gap between what they know and what
they want to know (Black and Wiliam, 1998), providing an opportunity for effective use of
AfL.
I moved on to trying to ascertain pupils’ prior knowledge of rocks and rock formation from
Key Stage 3, to incorporate this into the lesson and scaffold their learning (Bruner, 1974).
Pupils worked in small groups, to ensure that they were all actively involved in their own
learning (Rogoff, 1994) and classified the different types of rocks given to them, as igneous,
sedimentary or metamorphic. It was evident from their questions such as ‘do sedimentary
19
rocks have layers?’ that their prior knowledge was less than I had anticipated for such an able
group of pupils. This suggests that a large proportion of this class are in Piaget’s (1964)
concrete operations stage and have not yet progressed into the formal operations stage. As
limestone and the carbonates can be a very abstract concept to comprehend, I felt it was
important to spend more time than planned ensuring they understood the different types of
rocks before moving on to discuss limestone in particular. I used questioning, including
‘what is limestone made from?’ to which one pupil responded ‘seashells’ and another ‘coral’
and asked pupils what they thought was in the seashells and coral that made limestone. I
gave them time to discuss this and one pair responded uncertainly with ‘calcium from their
bones.’
I used this as an opportunity to encourage learning through behaviourism
(Hohenstein and Manning, 2010) and introduce calcium carbonate.
Although pupils were very quick to respond that carbon dioxide is produced when calcium
carbonate is heated, they struggled with the practical experiment and many did not observe
carbon dioxide being produced. I had not anticipated that this class would have difficulty
with a practical and will need to amend my lesson plans for subsequent lessons to
accommodate this.
This lesson had mixed success. When I reviewed their class work, and in particular, the
plenary in which they had had to write three things they had learnt in the lesson, it was
evident that pupils had understood sedimentary rock formation, that limestone is made from
calcium carbonate and that when heated strongly, it produces carbon dioxide and calcium
oxide. However, pupils were unable to transfer this knowledge to the thermal decomposition
of other carbonates and although they observed limewater turning cloudy, they struggled to
conclude that this was due to carbon dioxide being produced. This indicates that these pupils
20
are in the concrete operations stage as opposed to the formal operations stage of Piaget’s
(1964) developmental theory.
Homework was set to help pupils understand keywords that had been introduced in the
lesson. In order to address this I used Marais and Jordaan’s (2010) suggestion of a glossary
to help pupils understand the symbols in chemical equations and adapted it to include both
this and the numerous keywords associated with this topic. On review, many pupils had not
completed the homework, implying that the glossary may be a great suggestion in theory, but
not in practice. Those who had completed it, had clearly understood their learning objectives.
This was encouraging and reassured me that they had understood the subject content, even
though they may have struggled with the practical, and ensured that I could move on in the
next lesson.
This lesson could have been improved by carrying out the pre-test before this lesson, thereby
informing me that these pupils have little prior scientific knowledge, including that which
they have covered previously at key stage 3. It also could have been improved by using a
more controlled method for the practical, as opposed to giving pupils the method and
expecting them to have the practical skills to carry it out successfully. My aim, therefore, is
to develop their practical skills in the next lesson.
Lesson Two (Appendix 4)
On reflection of lesson one, rather than ask pupils what they knew about acid rain and
limestone and use this as a self-assessment tool at the end of the lesson, I decided to change
my starter activity to one that introduced the lesson within the bigger context. Since this
21
lesson was designed to address a key misconception about how acid rain reacts with
limestone, I used starter questions that would initially help them think about buildings made
from limestone, using what they had learnt from the previous lesson. I asked pupils ‘how did
a dead sea creature help to build the Empire State Building?’ I also wanted to understand
their prior knowledge about acid rain and how it is formed and so prepared two questions to
gain an insight into their learning from key stage 3. This informed me that pupils knew that
limestone is made from dead sea creatures and can be used as a building material. It also
informed me that pupils have a very good understanding of acid rain and how it is produced,
indicating that I did not need to spend lesson time reviewing their knowledge of this
phenomenon.
The main activity in this lesson was that pupils would investigate the reactions of carbonates
with acid. After lesson one, it was evident that my original plan to allow pupils to plan their
own investigation and develop their skills in this area, was not suitable for the majority of the
class. In order to ensure that all pupils were being challenged at the level of potential
development of their ZPD, I encouraged a group of six pupils who had shown good practical
skills in lesson one and are more able pupils, to plan an investigation together that they would
then carry out, under the supervision of the teaching assistant. They were mostly successful,
requiring little input from the teaching assistant, indicating that Rogoff’s (1994) theory of a
community of learners was evident within this group. With the remainder of the class, I
questioned them about what makes a good experiment and what observations would they
need to record in this investigation. I gave them the practical method and discussed how to
set up and carry out the experiment to obtain results. This was much more successful than
the previous lessons practical, with many pupils observing the reaction of carbonates with
acid and gaining practical skills in the process.
22
In the final section of this lesson, pupils needed to answer questions about the reactions of the
carbonates with acid to ensure their understanding of the practical activity. These questions
were of increasing difficulty, ultimately ending with their knowledge being applied to a new
context; acid rain and buildings made of limestone. The worksheet used shows scaffolding
(Bruner, 1974) and guides pupils through the concept of acid rain from the concrete
operations stage to the formal operations stage (Piaget, 1964). Although the previous lesson
had indicated that many of these pupils were in the concrete operations stage, I was confident
after the success of the starter activity that they would be able to apply the knowledge they
acquired during the practical to the ‘real-life’ context of acid rain; a context that they already
had some knowledge of.
Overall, this lesson was much more successful than lesson one had been. Pupils understood
that acid rain does not dissolve limestone, but rather reacts with it to produce a salt, water and
carbon dioxide which, overtime, erodes buildings made of limestone. However, I think it
could have been improved by further differentiation of the class for planning the investigation
and additional adult support in the room would have been an advantage to achieve this.
Lesson Three (Appendix 5)
On reflection of lessons one and two, I was confident that my original plan to ask pupils what
they already knew about their learning objectives and use this as a self-assessment tool at the
end of the lesson, was not an appropriate activity for this class. Consequently, I changed my
starter activity to include a recap of thermal decomposition reactions from lesson one. I
asked pupils to complete the word equation and then write the balanced symbol equation,
23
scaffolding their learning from filling in the blanks of a word equation, which I confident
they could all do, to encouraging them to write the symbol equation. Finally, I asked pupils
to name this type of reaction. The majority of pupils did not recall that this was thermal
decomposition, but after a more able pupil provided this information, many pupils made
comments such as ‘oh yeah’ so I was confident that they knew this reaction and had simply
forgotten the name of it.
This activity guided pupils between the three levels of the
chemistry triplet (Talanquer, 2011) and confirms the observation that pupils find navigating
the levels challenging.
The main activity in this lesson focused on the limestone cycle, the first stage of which is
thermal decomposition. As a result of the challenges pupils faced in the starter activity and
knowing that pupils needed to navigate the three levels of the chemistry triplet for this
activity, I placed pupils in pairs or threes with at least one more able pupil in each. This
meant that pupils could support those in their group so that all pupils were being challenged
at the level of potential development of their ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). Working in groups also
meant that learning could take place through sociocultural experiences (Rogoff, 1994) and
that I could move between the groups guiding pupils towards the completed limestone cycle.
It was evident that pupils understood the cycle at the symbolic level and could work out
which came next in the sequence using the symbols of the compound before and the symbol
of the compound which was added. This was also evident when marking their books as many
pupils had completed the balanced symbol equations for each reaction. However, many
pupils struggled to name the compounds and the types of reactions and needed much more
support and guidance from me to do this. This was also evident when marking their books as
many pupils had not written the word equations for the reactions. This indicates that they
24
were able to understand the cycle at the symbolic level, and although they may also
understand it at the macroscopic (types of reactions) and submicroscopic (naming
compounds) levels, they couldn’t navigate confidently between them. This supports the
research of Davidowitz, Chittleborough and Murray (2010). Some of the more able pupils in
the class could do this, suggesting that these pupils are in the formal operations stage of
Piaget’s (1964) developmental theory, but that the majority of the class are in the concrete
operations stage.
Overall this lesson had mixed success. I was confident that pupils had understood the content
from this and previous lessons and the results of the true or false plenary activity support this
conclusion (appendix 5.4). I was also confident that all pupils had understood the limestone
cycle at the symbolic level, but was aware that the majority of the pupils in the class had
experienced cognitive conflict about navigating between the levels and had not overcome
this. Therefore, to improve this lesson I would ask pupils to explain the limestone cycle and
ensure that all pupils had understood it, rather than displaying the correct answers and asking
them to self-assess their own work.
Lesson Four (Appendix 6)
After reviewing lesson three, I believed that the class needed more encouragement to
navigate between the three levels of the chemistry triplet (Talanquer, 2011) successfully.
Therefore I incorporated this into the worksheet that pupils would complete during this lesson
and attempted to guide them from the macroscopic level to the symbolic level rather than the
opposite direction as in lesson three. Once again I asked them to name the type of reaction
that limestone undergoes when it is heated and then write the symbol equation for it.
25
Consequently pupils needed to navigate between the levels in which the use of limestone for
making cement, mortar and concrete became the macroscopic level and naming the type of
reaction became the submicroscopic level. Pupils continued to find this challenging but, in
comparison to lesson three, were able to understand the content at the macroscopic level and
had difficulty with the others, also supporting the research in the literature review
(Davidowitz, Chittleborough and Murray, 2010). This suggests that the level at which pupils
begin the lesson, is the level at which they remain throughout. The more able pupils in this
class were able to navigate between these levels, suggesting they are in the formal operations
stage of Piaget’s (1964) developmental theory.
The main activity in this lesson was to complete the worksheet about cement and concrete
using information provided by a video and a page from their textbook (Jones, M., Petheram,
L. and Tingle, M., 2011, p. 115). When marking their books I realised that many pupils had
written the word gravel as opposed to aggregate when describing what is used to make
concrete. The literature review suggested that not using everyday language when discussing
rock formation prevents pupils from developing misconceptions and I took this into account
in the context of making concrete as well. I was aware that the textbook used the word
gravel, and explained to pupils that I wanted them to use a more scientific word. I used the
word aggregate in my resources so that pupils could amend their own work when the answers
were given. However, the majority of pupils did not amend the familiar word gravel to the
unfamiliar, scientific word aggregate, supporting the conclusion that pupils do learn more
effectively through their social and cultural experiences (Vygotsky, 1978, Rogoff, 1994).
This is something that I addressed in feedback when marking their books and asked pupils ‘is
there a better, more scientific word you could use?’
26
The final part of the worksheet, required pupils to apply the knowledge they had gained to
another context. This required pupils to move from the concrete operations stage in which
they were using information from the video and the textbook to answer the questions, to the
formal operations stage in which they need to bring together information to formulate an
answer. Many pupils did not attempt to answer these questions, this would indicate they are
in the concrete operations stage and cannot formulate an answer. Those who did attempt it,
either answered correctly suggesting they are in the formal operations stage, or
unsuccessfully tried to link ideas together from their answers to the first questions. This
suggests that these pupils may be experiencing some cognitive conflict over the ideas
presented in this lesson and may be moving between the stages of development.
Overall this lesson had mixed success. Pupils are in various stages of Piaget’s (1964)
developmental theory and some are able to navigate the levels of the chemistry triplet
(Talanquer, 2011) whereas others cannot. Those who are in the formal operations stage and
are able to navigate between the levels achieved the learning objectives of the lesson,
whereas those who are not, achieved only one of the learning objectives. To improve this
lesson, I would encourage pupils to work in groups of varying ability so that they can better
support each other’s learning.
Lesson Five (Appendix 7)
On reflection of lesson four, it was important to reiterate to pupils the importance of using the
word aggregate as opposed to gravel. When I amended my starter activity from asking pupils
to describe what they knew, thought they knew and wanted to know after reflection of lesson
one, I changed it to questions that asked them to list the materials used to make concrete.
27
Pupils were able to name all the materials used, but continued to use the word gravel. I asked
pupils if there was a more scientific word they could use instead and after allowing pupils
some time to think, I received answers such as little rocks and stones from less able pupils.
After some prompting, a more able pupil suggested the word aggregate. Looking through the
class books after the lesson, I could see that many pupils had written this word alongside the
word gravel, suggesting they understand that the word aggregate needs to be used but they
are experiencing some cognitive conflict about accepting this word instead of gravel.
The first main activity enabled pupils to test the concrete they had made in the previous
lesson. Some groups had made very strong concrete, whilst others had concrete that had not
set properly. I asked pupils to discuss in their groups why their concrete had the appearance
it did, what had they mixed together and how much of each material? I asked pupils to
discuss how they could improve their own concrete. Listening to their conversations I found
that many pupils could self-assess their work and suggest ideas to improve it using their
knowledge from the previous lesson. Pupils were asked to compare their results with another
group who had a different outcome to theirs and then provide some advice on how the other
group could improve the strength of their concrete. Groups whose concrete had set properly
were able to describe how they had made theirs and give appropriate advice to the other
group. However, those whose concrete had not set properly had difficulty giving advice to
the other group. I had anticipated this because the majority of the class had not answered this
part of the worksheet in lesson four and had asked pupils in the starter activity how concrete
is made stronger. At the time, some suggested adding steel to it, so when they couldn’t apply
this to their own experiment, I was disappointed.
28
The second activity was to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of limestone quarrying.
The results of the pre-test (statement 10) suggested that pupils do not understand the process
of quarrying and how it affects the environment. Therefore, I used a video to illustrate it and
asked pupils to write down all the advantages and disadvantages they found out. It was
evident that some pupils did not understand the task and consequently, I decided to question
pupils about what they had seen to encourage them all to participate and learn through social
constructivism. I asked pupils to name an advantage and a disadvantage and to explain their
answers. This was successful and pupils were able to use this information to write the
opinions of different groups of people about quarrying.
Overall, this lesson was a success. Pupils were able to self-assess their own experiment and
could effectively evaluate limestone quarrying. However, I was dissatisfied with their peerassessment skills, particularly as I was confident they had understood at the beginning of the
lesson, that steel is added to concrete to make it stronger. To improve this lesson I would
provide pupils with more specific criteria to use for peer-assessment and possibly provide
them with a tick sheet or table to complete to assist them with this.
29
Conclusion
The lesson sequence and the pre-test identified that the misconceptions recognised in the
literature review were held by pupils in my class to some extent.
In order to assess the learning of pupils throughout the sequence, I gave them back their pretest and asked if they would like to amend any of their answers and evidence. Those pupils
who had not been present for the pre-test were given a blank copy of the test and asked to
complete it. The post-test (appendix 8) showed that there was an increase in the number of
pupils who believe that limestone is made from calcium carbonate and when heated can
produce another solid and a gas. Pupils gave the names of the products as their evidence and
some pupils also named the type of reaction. This was encouraging as it was something
pupils had found challenging in lessons three and four. The post-test also identified that
some pupils had overcome their misconceptions about chemical equations and could
correctly identify that the equation was not balanced. However, there was also an increase in
the number of pupils who believed that the equation was balanced correctly. It is reassuring
that pupils were more confident to attempt to answer this, however, it is evident that these
pupils need further support on this topic.
Interestingly, the post-test showed that the number of pupils who believe acid rain dissolves
limestone did not change during the lesson sequence. However the evidence pupils provided
to support their decision did change. Initially pupils wrote comments such as ‘I saw it on a
documentary’ but these were crossed out and replaced with no comments, suggesting that
these pupils have experienced some cognitive conflict about this concept, but have not
overcome their misconception and indicating that they are still be in the concrete operations
30
stage of development. More pupils decided that this statement was false compared to the pretest and added evidence to include comments such as ‘it doesn’t dissolve it, but it does
damage it.’ These pupils were the more able pupils and evidently understood that limestone
reacts with acid rain.
The literature review identified that pupils would have difficulty with the levels of the
chemistry triplet (Talanquer, 2011) and suggested that this may be due to a teacher’s inability
to guide them from one level to the next. I took this into account when planning the lesson
sequence and aimed lesson three at trying to overcome this. It was clear from their books that
only a minority of pupils were able to describe the limestone cycle at all three levels,
supporting the research of Davidowitz, Chittleborough and Murray (2010). On reflection,
this part of the topic may need more teacher support than I had anticipated to ensure that all
pupils fully understand.
It was clear from this lesson sequence that this class were a mix of those in the concrete
operations stage and those in the formal operations stage of Piaget’s (1964) developmental
theorem.
Subsequently, these pupils are capable of different degrees of understanding,
making teaching this topic more challenging. It is an abstract topic requiring pupils to bring
together different areas of knowledge and form conclusions; a capability characteristic of
those in the formal operations stage. It was therefore a necessity to use Bruner’s theorem
(1974) and scaffold their learning, particularly for those in the concrete operations stage.
Scaffolding was achieved using both questioning and worksheets.
During the lesson sequence I aimed to put into practice Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of social
constructivism and Rogoff’s (1994) sociocultural theory. Pupils were able to work in small
31
groups, usually of varying ability, in order to learn from each other.
They were also
encouraged to discuss their thoughts before suggesting answers and to talk to other pupils
when working through the tasks. The use of language to enhance learning is particularly
important as it indicated a reason why pupils form misconceptions about rocks. Research by
Dove (1998) suggested not using everyday language to avoid creating these misconceptions.
This became apparent in lesson four, when pupils preferred to use ‘gravel,’ a familiar
everyday word, as opposed to ‘aggregate,’ a scientific word even when reminded not to.
Another way in which the sociocultural theory was put into practice in this sequence was
through the use of practicals. Pupils were able to work in groups of various abilities to carry
them out and understand the content involved. The practical activities were also designed to
help pupils visualise the content and assist them with understanding the abstract nature of this
topic. I am confident, although many pupils did not have sufficient practical skills, that they
did help, particularly in lesson two, in which pupils carried out the carbonates and acid
reactions and answered questions about the practical in order to link it to the bigger context of
acid rain. I am also confident that they have enabled pupils to develop their practical skills.
The assessment for learning techniques used in this assignment were of mixed success.
Pupil’s self-assessment and feedback through both marking and verbally, worked well and
my questioning helped me to assess the progress of the class and particular individuals within
it, indicating when pupils had understood and I could move on to the next task. Peerassessment, however, was not so successful and if I were to teach this sequence again, I
would improve by spending time building pupils’ confidence with it over a period of time, so
that they could effectively assess the quality of someone else’s work and provide them with
advice on how to improve.
32
The post-test shows that pupils have changed their beliefs and improved the quality/level of
evidence they have given to support their beliefs about limestone and carbonates, even if their
belief is not the accepted scientific understanding. Thus overall, this lesson sequence was
successful in teaching pupils about limestone and the carbonates.
33
Bibliography
Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, 2012. GCSE Specification Chemistry. [pdf]
Assessment
and
Qualifications
Alliance.
Available
at:
<http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-4402-W-SP-14.PDF > [Accessed 3rd January
2015].
Black, P. and Harrison, C., 2004. Science inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in
the Science Classroom. London: GL Assessment.
Black, P. et al., 2004. Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the
Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), pp. 8-21
Black, P. and Wiliam, D., 1998. Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), pp. 7-74
Black, P. and Wiliam, D., 2010. Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom
Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), pp. 81-90
Bruner, J., 1974. Toward a Theory of Instruction. New York: Harvard University Press
Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G. and Murray, E., 2010.
Student-generated submicro
diagrams: a useful tool for teaching and learning chemical equations and stoichiometry.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), pp. 154-164
34
Department for Education, 2014. Science Programmes of Study: Key Stage 4. [pdf]
Department
for
Education.
Available
at:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381380/Scie
nce_KS4_PoS_7_November_2014.pdf> [Accessed 3rd January 2015].
Dove, J., 1996. Student Teaching Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Layer
Depletion and Acid Rain. Environmental Education Research, 2(1), pp. 89-100
Dove, J.E., 1998. Students’ Alternative Conceptions in Earth Science: a Review of Research
and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Research Papers in Education, 13(2), pp. 183201
Driver, R., 1981. Pupil’s Alternative Frameworks in Science. European Journal of Science
Education, 3(1), pp. 93-101
Driver, R. et al., 1994. Making Sense of Secondary Science: Research into Children’s Ideas.
London: Routledge.
Garnett, P.J., Garnett, P.J. and Hackling, M.W., 1995. Students' Alternative Conceptions in
Chemistry: A Review of Research and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Studies in
Science Education, 25(1), pp. 69-96
Hohenstein, J. and Manning, A., 2010. Thinking About Learning: Learning in Science. In: J.
Osborne and J. Dillon, eds. 2010. Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research Has to
Say. New York: Open University Press. Ch. 4.
35
Jones, M., Petheram, L. and Tingle, M., 2011. Science A, For Specification Units B1, C1 and
P1. London: Collins
Kortz, K.M., and Murray, D.P., 2009. Barriers to College Students Learning How Rocks
Form. Journal of Geoscience Education, 25(4), pp. 300-315
Marais, P. and Jordaan, F., 2000. Are we Taking Symbolic Language for Granted? Journal of
Chemical Education, 77(10), pp. 1355-1357
Nakhleh, M.B., 1992. Why Some Students Don’t Learn Chemistry. Journal of Chemical
Education, 69(3), pp. 191-196
Ofsted,
.
School
Inspection
Report.
[pdf]
Ofsted.
<
Available
at:
>
[Accessed 29th September 2014].
Piaget, J., 1964. Part 1 Cognitive Development in Children: Piaget Development and
Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), pp. 176-186
Rogoff, B., 1994. Developing Understanding of the Idea of Communities of Learners. Mind,
Culture and Activity, 1(4), pp. 209-229
Talanquer, V., 2011. Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The Many Faces of the Chemistry
“Triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), pp. 179-195
36
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
37