To text poll or not to text poll, that is the question?

May 19, 2013 in Ideas, Implementation, Pedagoo, Resource, Technologies by Dan Williams

Although I have come across online text polls in the past, I hadn’t used them myself until last week in one of my lessons and came to the conclusion that they are more time and effort than they are worth – let me explain why…

The group of learners I used this with were Entry Level 3 and in a nutshell the objective of the session was to identify and demonstrate skills, qualities and values required when assisting at a sport and active leisure event.

So after providing learners with their personalised targets for the session I asked them to place their mobile phones on their desks. Out of the 12 learners in attendance, only 10 had a phone…already the task was not going to plan!..so, I paired the learners without phones with somebody with one.

I then provided the text number and opening question…”what skills are needed when helping to lead a sports event?”… Learners were allowed open ended answers and the premise was that the answers that were text to the number would appear on the smart board…what I didn’t realise until the time was that learners who didn’t have phone credit, could not participate…another two learners out of the task and requiring a partner. Those that did have credit began to text their answers and they started to appear on the board – great!

However, it soon became apparent that it wasn’t clear who was texting what answers (thus making it difficult to target questions to the learner concerned and also ensuring that all learners answered). Moreover the answers that came through were not just skills, but also qualities and values… Not such a bad thing, but in order to differentiate between the three areas I had to write everything on the white board (almost defeating the purpose of this e learning tool) and ask learners to dissect the information into the relevant categories.

So after almost 20 minutes and the disengagement of those without a phone/credit, I came to the conclusion that I could have provided the learners with a much more effective learning environment had I used ‘post-its’ or any other traditional strategy which allows all to be involved, whilst allowing me to see who answers.

Despite believing that there is room for e-learning in the classroom, I do feel that we need to ensure that whatever is chosen as a strategy is effective and not just used because the school/college has an e-learning agenda.

On the other hand, perhaps I approached text polls in the wrong fashion, so if you have used them with success, please share your comments.

Talking pedagogy globally

April 12, 2013 in Curricular Areas, Ideas, Implementation, Professional Learning, SOLO by Andy Knill

February 2013, after #ukedchat on Twitter a group of us who use and are interested in the use of Solo taxonomy have a chat about its use. We are all UK based and the chat is interesting and very useful. The next morning, another educator I have chatted with about Solo enquiries if the chat she had found on Twitter was a regular solo chat. Alice is based in Melbourne, Australia. I tell Alice that no it’s not a regular chat but go on to tell her about an experiment in July 2012 led by John Sayers (known to many on Twitter) that was a group of geographers discussing Solo’s relevance to their teaching.

The geogsolo chat was on a Saturday so that it could cover as many time zones as possible. It included Penny from Virginia, USA;several of us who are UK based inc. John and myself; Emma in Abu Dhabi; Amy in Australia and we were also joined by a teacher from New Zealand. In one our we had made a global link based on one pedagogical idea.

So, why is this relevant? because Alice and I decided that we’d try a repeat exercise but for an open group to discuss Solo with a global audience one Saturday in April 2013.

The chat which we have been promoting in several countries is called #sologlobalchat and it takes place on Saturday 13 April at 11am UK time (GMT +1). Alice and I will host and the session will be archived using Storify by Alice. Feel free to join us or read about how it went after the event. To practice hosting a chat I acted as #ukedchat host last night on the topic of CPD. The rush of tweets was a surprise at first but I seemed to host successfully.

Onto Saturday and beyond …..

I am on Twitter at @aknill.

Sorting the wheat from the chaff #LTT2013

April 2, 2013 in Creativity, ICT, Ideas, Implementation, Involving Pupils, PE, Pedagoo, PedagooFriday by Ian Sellwood


I was really looking forward to this week. The obvious reason was because I am now on holiday for two weeks and will be able to catch up with friends, family and some well earned rest. But there was a far more interesting event for me this week. I attended the 2 day Learning Through Technology conference in Glasgow.

This event could not have come soon enough for me, partly because it ticks the rest of my CPD requirements, but mainly because I was looking for some help in sorting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the use of technology in teaching. I am particularly guilty of dabbling with far too many different methods of bringing technology into my lessons. I don’t think I am alone in this and I hoped someone would talk some common sense this week and let me see the wood from the trees!

What with flip cams, twitter, edmodo, ubersense, coaches eye, phoster, evernote, wordfoto, dropbox, mini league, qr scanning, mindmaple and of course the essential pedagoo, pegeeks, iphys-ed, pescholar, and my weekly podcasts, my head is a blur!

Now, a lot of these new areas of my teaching week are very helpful and add a really enjoyable dimension to lessons, but where does it stop? One of said podcasts, the #physed podcast, recently discussed the balancing act between using technology and keeping the pupils active. Imagine a pupil struggling to keep their arm straight and score a consistent shot in basketball. Which is better, asking a pupil to film the shot with ubersense then discussing and offering feedback from the slow motion capture, or the teacher quickly going across and simply tucking the shooting elbow in to the body and letting the pupil get back to it. There is a time and a place for technology and sometimes the lines for me are blurred.

There were some fantastic presentations over the two days but it was the networking opportunities which really were the highlight for me. I came way from the event having met some fantastic practitioners and leaders in their own field. It was these conversations that helped the most and at the very least I now know almost every other school faces the same issues and together we can actually make a difference.

The introductory speaker, David Cameron, argued that we might be talking too much about technology and not enough about the learning which comes from its use. This made a lot of sense for me and I agreed with his opinion that we must avoid the novelty factor. Something which I am probably guilty of just now!

There seemed to be a lot of focus around which devices are best suited in school. Apple made a big appearance over the two days and I am already a convert to this system. This is not the issue for me though. Our school uses chromebooks which have made a big impact as well. My frustration is with the speed at which new tech and apps arrive but the polar opposite with which our working environment is being made future proof and allowing and trusting us as professionals to utilise all these exciting advancements safely. Our school is not far away from trialling filtered access wifi in a small area of the building. Once a suitable product and service is decided upon then it should be rolled out school wide. But even when or if we get this next step education budgets cannot keep up with always providing the “next big thing”.

There was a lot of very healthy debate about IT restrictions and opinion over buying, leasing and bring your own device options. An overwhelming number of the people attending were in favour of removal of all IT restrictions and investing time in the teaching of safe and sensible use of the Internet. Dr Alexander Allan, MSP, spoke about a vision and promise for equality for every pupil to access and learn with technology. This is something which is still a long way off when we heard from several different teachers in the final debate who spoke about such a wide range of restrictions in their regions. Why can there not be more trust in our ability to deliver learning with the aid of any technology we feel is applicable? There will be examples of schools a few miles apart separated by a county line who have completely different sets of rules and restrictions. How can that be fair to the children?

I came away from the conference with some useful contacts, advice and opinions. I look forward to the new Glow Plus. Jaye Richards-Hill spoke with a real sense of belief that this project will meet national requirements for a world leading learning environment. I have a sense of understanding about how I should use technology in my teaching. It is a support and should stimulate learning not constrain it. This also goes for my planning…..support not constrain.

There are some exciting projects using iPads which are both primary and secondary driven. This 1:1 pilot programme is already showing both the benefits and problems with purchasing a device for every child. I was really impressed with the pupils from Bellshill Academy, who delivered a session of their experiences with using iPads. The major question from this was how does it continue to roll out across the school?

I have some thoughts on this. We currently have the fantastic #pupilfriday and #pedagoofriday where pupils and staff are invited to take out their smartphone and share positive teaching experiences that week through a tweet. I think the next stage for me would be BYODfriday. Bring your own device day which encourages staff to create lessons which incorporate the use of smartphones, tablets or something similar. And for those who cannot access a device like this (which is a remarkably small number) there is always the option of partner work and school provided devices. I know in my subject the possibilities of using coaching apps, data recording functions and collaborative document creations are endless. It does need a robust wifi system but within the next 5 years what won’t?!

Allowing pupils to be given the freedom to use open access wifi on curricular tasks for a short period of time like our half day Fridays would give the school a chance to test the system, develop lessons and strategies of best use and instill a safe use policy for the pupils. This would then naturally give way to full use through the whole week which is surely where we will all end up in a few years time anyway?

So, did the conference help me sort the wheat from the chaff? Not directly, but it was never going to do that! What it did do was focus my thoughts into a more streamlined approach to using all the excellent resources out there just now. But the event was also much more than that. I thoroughly enjoyed the thoughts of Derek Robertson and the promoting of a culture of creation. Andrea Reid was a refreshing voice of reason from the perspective of a quality improvement officer. I even managed to create a fantastic link with Skill Development Scotland and my work within the fitness for work element in our S2 Careers block. I have added a few new names to my following list on Twitter and look forward to some interesting points of view in the coming months.

I feel much more at ease with what I am trying to do in my own teaching career with regards to technology and appreciate that with a more trustworthy system of access to the World Wide Web, we would all make much better progress. After all, as the Head teacher from Hawick High School said, why stop a teacher or pupil from accessing “bloody Culloden” in a history lesson when they can just pull out a mobile device and jump onto 3G within seconds?

I look forward to the day when we can move forward at a pace which is much more suited to the modern era, and I know for a fact my subject is more than ready to lead the way!

Web 2.0 in the Primary Classroom

February 3, 2013 in ICT, Ideas, Implementation, Pedagoo, Professional Learning by Sam Aldred

Hello pedagoo! My name is Sam Aldred and I am currently half way through a BA Primary Education course at the University of Roehampton.

As part of my ICT specialism led by Miles Berry and Helen Sharpe, I have been set the task of setting up a wiki with my fellow students. The wiki is to act as a catalogue of Web 2.0 tools for use in primary schools. Whilst at first I thought “brilliant, exactly my kind of thing’, I was then shown to the wiki of last year’s students and told we had to add to it – they have already done pretty much every web 2.0 tool I know of!  Despite going to BETT2013, I didn’t see many Web 2.0 stalls! (Perhaps there was so much I missed it but I was there working for 72 hours straight!)

So, the list so far:

PB Works, Google maps/docs/hangout/sketchup, twitter, weebly, sclipo, zondle, simple wiki, audioboo, Ujam, Glogster, Storybird, Primarypad, Flickr, Museum Box, Prezi, voice thread, radiowaves, PlanetFesto, Epals, Pixorial, Photopeach, Bubbl.us, Wallwisher, Little Bird Tales, KidBlog, EduBlogs, SlideShare, Kerpoof, StoryJumper, Titan Pad, Stixy, Storify, Barnaby Bear, Comic Master, Gliffy, TypeWith.me, Tutpup, Wordle, Zoo burst, buildyourwildself, gaggle, communitywalk, a.nnotate, voki, animate IT, Skype, Janet, Blogger, Dualingo, Infogr.am and Wix!

Phew! What a list. I can safely recommend all of them! Unfortunately I can’t link you to our PBWorks wiki as it is yet to be submitted/marked but I’ll talk to my lecturers and hopefully make it public eventually!

Any additions you can think of? Do any of you run any web 2.0 companies you think I should really know about?! Please let me know and I’ll be truly grateful!

An Experiment in Target Setting

January 29, 2013 in Curriculum, ICT, Ideas, Implementation, Involving Pupils by Tom Heaton

As an ICT teacher of 5 years experience in a 6th form college in Cheshire, I experience the usual problems that we all encounter on a day to day basis. Lateness, attendance and apathy have all proven a problem to me in my relatively short career but the biggest problem for me seems to be progress.Like most ICT teachers,  I teach predominantly vocational courses. Therefore, we’re focused on coursework 100% of the time. The issue that arises most often than not is that students don’t make enough progress in these lessons, they often seem distracted and poorly focused even in a post 16 environment.

In early September after a meeting with my line manager I was set a performance management target for 2012/13 to try to develop a program/project/system to tackle this issue. I initially thought of short term targets as a way to focus students right at the beginning of the lesson, at least that way they would know what to work on. This initially started as a paper based exercise at the start of each session, where a new target sheet was passed around the class. There was some clear successes with this, as student focus did seem to improve. However, there were also problems. Such as the sheet sometimes taking a very long time to circulate the classroom, and the inevitable class clown drawing genitalia on it !

This led me back to an area where I’m very comfortable, the internet. I built a simple web based database and had students enter targets onto it each lesson. Eliminating the problems with the paper system straight away. This then grew slowly in my spare time to a web based application I called Today’s Target (http://www.todaystarget.com), and I’ve now reached a point where my system is ready for the world to use it, test it and help me improve it.I now use this system in every coursework lesson, students set targets upon entering the classroom and I review these on an individual basis at the end of the lesson using an IOS app I’ve written. It’s a ready built start & plenary !

I’ve noticed a number of improvements -

  • Focus at the start of the lesson is much improved, students now come in sit down and think ‘What am I going to do today ?”
  • Students who make poor progress can see it in black and white, and are motivated to improve
  • Students know their targets will be reviewed in each lesson, so make sure they work to these targets to avoid it being marked ‘not met’
  • I can use the data collected for discussions with students on their progress and their own expectations of themselves.

I would love to invite all Pedagoo readers to try this with their classes in coursework lessons. My students now do it instinctively upon logging on and I’d be very interested to hear other points of view.

I’m not your Stepping Stone…

January 28, 2013 in Assessment, Curriculum, Implementation, Involving Pupils, Pedagoo by Bryan Gregg

I’ve been reading a lot lately, both online in blogs and tweets and in things like TES, about Learning Outcomes and the varying schools of thought around their efficacy or otherwise.

Reading the supposed gurus (no names, no pack drill) and their published texts, you’d be forgiven for thinking you had to use them all the time and get the jargon  exactly right or no learning would ever take place.

I remember a lecture/tutorial thing from my time at Jordanhill (BA Sport in the Community, not BEd…) when we had a session during a block about coaching and the coaching process. Our tutor, a venerable ex PE teacher and Scotland Rugby Internationalist, asked us questions along the lines of “are Learning Outcomes goals we MUST get to? Are there stepping stones on the way? What might they be called? Are they objectives? Must we do things in a certain way and with a certain vocabulary to get the best results?”

He summed up, after we’d batted the idea about for a good ninety minutes, with something I still think is valid today:

It doesn’t matter what you call them as long as they tell you what you want to do, how you’re going to get there and how you’ll know if you’ve done it or not.

I also “studied” (attended lectures, rattled off an assignment) Marketing at the time as part of the course. They like their objectives those Marketing guys. That’s fair enough, people (companies, businesses, public sector organisations) are spending a lot of money to promote whatever it is they need to promote, so it’s only right that there are checks and balances in place to ensure they’re getting a fair bang for their buck.

One way of doing that is to ensure that any plan/campaign/initiative they devise has an associated set of targets. They like to call them “SMART Targets” – I’m sure you’ve heard of them. It’s an acronym. Now, for me, acronyms are generally hateful things but this one stands up well.

The exact nomenclature changes depending on the publication you read but SMART is generally taken to mean that a target must be:

  • Specific
  • Measurable
  • Achievable
  • Realistic
  • Time-bound
These, I hope, are pretty much self-explanatory but just in case here’s another wee version of the same. The crux of it is that things (whatever they may be) can’t work well or at any rate *efficiently* if you don’t have an agreed timetable for them to happen to.
Other acronyms, WALT and WILF are often maligned and, to be fair, I’m not keen on the anthropomorphism of them into “characters” but I accept that it’s good to have something to hang your lesson and ideas on.

I don’t always use the phrase “We are learning to…” with the class, sometimes it’s “we are looking at…” or “we’d like to know if…” but the bottom line is the same: it says what you’re hoping to do. I never have too many “WALTS” because then it gets busy, messy and difficult to evaluate but I do always try to flag up any accidental/serendipitious learning after the lesson.

For example, I might write up on the whiteboard during the plenary (tick!):

WALT “x…y…z” – we know we achieved it because “…(revisit WILF)” and We Also Found/Learned/Discovered….

In the Curriculum for Excellence this kind of “accidental learning” or discovery is the kind that I’m finding more and more of.

Today in Science with p4-7 we started off on vinegar and baking soda and ended up looking at the Giant’s Causeway. Don’t ask. It does however mean that, through the children’s own enquiry, we’ve now collaboratively mapped out some possibilities to explore in the coming weeks, everything from studying basalt to trying to organise a talk about the geological history of Ben Nevis.

If I’d put up a strict (ie must-be-adhered-to) list of objectives/targets/whatevers for yesterday’s  lesson then anyone sitting with a checklist would have failed the lot of us yet I’d argue we all got more out of the session as a result of discussions and “happy accidents”.

That’s not to say, of course, that we can ignore plans and pre-determined Outcomes – we must keep them there if we want to ensure appropriate coverage in terms of depth and progression – but they can’t be an enslaving ideology, they must be more of a guiding principle. Surely that’s not too much of a Mission (Statement): Impossible?

 

Taking the reins off.

January 19, 2013 in Assessment, Creativity, English, ICT, Ideas, Implementation, Involving Pupils, Literacy, Pedagoo by James McEnaney

OK, cards on the table: I had every intention of writing this post at the start of December, but a series of unfortunate events conspired to get in my way. Now I’ve found a little time to write up one of my most recent projects and share what my S3 class were getting up to at the end of last term.

Having completed the study (including an Int2 level critical essay) of ‘Assisi’ and a discursive essay with my S3 at the start of the year I decided to move on to ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’. This decision involved breaking a personal rule of mine, which is to avoid teaching my own personal favourite novels, but I have a huge amount of faith in my third years and thought that they would be able to do justice to a text that I consider to be one of the most important pieces of literature ever published.

From the outset, however, I was determined to do something a little different with the novel; inspired by Neil Winton’s “What is Beauty?” idea, I decided to set my pupils a seemingly simple task: submit something on the subject of prejudice and/or discrimination. I made it clear to the class that they could submit just about anything so long as it was something that they were proud of and that they had clearly worked hard on; I also explicitly stated right from the start that I did not want to see drafts of their projects and that, while I would help people if they asked, they were not required to even tell me what they intended to hand in. Teaching English often means marking a couple of dozen essays that are all essentially the same, so I was desperate for as much variety as possible.

To be honest, I expected to encounter quite a bit of resistance – not to the task itself, but to the sheer amount of freedom and control being handed over. Pupils are so used to the idea of submitting drafts and receiving corrections that I thought they might feel a bit over-whelmed by the prospect of being expected to complete an entire project without any of that support – I was wrong! The vast majority of the class took to the task incredibly well and, having been given a specific time-frame (7 weeks) every pupil handed in their project on time (mostly via Edmodo). What really struck me was the remarkable enthusiasm amongst the students – in my opinion, this was a direct result of them feeling both trusted and respected.

On hand-in date (which, entirely coincidentally, happened to be on the same day as S3 Parents’ Night) I received Powerpoints, Prezis, Thinglinks, Youtube videos, posters, a model, some creative writing (one of these pieces is more than 7000 words long) and a model.

If you would like to see what a really good S3 class can produce when given the freedom to just get on with it you can visit: http://mys3class.wordpress.com

So where do I go from here? Well I’ve decided to push the concept even further, making use of the central idea as part of a poetry analysis and production project. This experience has strengthened my belief that you only really know what a student (or class) is capable of when you take the reins off and let them use all of their knowledge and skills independently. Within the next month or so I should have a range of submissions which explore a selection of poetry choices (again, the students will have a free choice as to what form their submission actually takes), as well as a collection of poetry produced by the pupils (all of which will be added to the blog linked to above) – I’ll let you know how it goes.

Personalisation: Platitude or Policy?

January 17, 2013 in Creativity, Curriculum, Ideas, Implementation, Involving Pupils, Leadership, Professional Learning, Social Studies, Technologies by Adam O'Connor

Ever since David Miliband used the term personalisation in his 2007 speech the term has taken on a life of its own. It’s strange how the lexicon of education is polluted by ill defined and ambiguous terms and how over time they take on a life of their own.

The case has never been more apt in reference to personalisation. What exactly is it? How is it different to differentiation? And is it achievable?

Firstly, the stock definition is that it is the offering of educational pathways to all students based on their learning needs. A just statement and you will not find a teacher in the land who would disagree with that.

However, this isn’t a definition, this is a sentiment, not a policy.

In reality how can one teacher in a class of 30 individuals, all with their own learning styles which are influenced by a multitude of needs really be specifically catered for by one person? Are the advocates of personalisation tacitly implying that we are to read the minds of every child we teach? On the job description it did not stipulate ‘must have Dr Xavier levels of telepathy’. No, this can not be achieved until we look at the issue rationally.

Over the last term I have started to build up a bank of ideas for creating a personalised lesson which is realistic and generic. I have came up the following plan

1. Firstly you have to flip the classroom.
2. Make a list of every single activity you use in the class with students.
3. For every activity make an instructional manual on how the task works and proved an example (ks3,4 &5) once this is done it makes planning SOW easier in the future.
4. Using a taxonomy of your choice grade the challenge level of each activity ( colour code or number them)

Once you have done this take your class data and have a close look at it. Decide where each student is in terms of progress based on all available data.

The next stage is simple- each lesson give each student 3 tasks to complete based on their progress. If child A is working at grade C start them off on an activity you have categorised as grade C and then for the remaining two tasks give them activities which you have graded as B. This way you are specifically targeting the students needs whilst challenging them to progress.

Doesn’t this take ages to do?

In a word no! Whilst I admit the creation and codification of the activities took time to create ( laminated copies and digital copies) once this was one I simply resourced the lesson and allocated the activities in the space of ten min.

The resources already existed eg textbook or historical sources. The only difference was the way each student approached the task.

It also gave me the chance to roam the class monitoring progress and adapting the plan as the lesson moved on. I could also identify students who were struggling and change tasks to suit their needs quickly and effectively.

Is this personalisation?

Well I’m open to discussion! But since the term is ambitious I would claim that this was one approach.

To save people some time I’ve uploaded my resources to my site www.weteachhistory.com

Adam O’Connor

Jelly Baby Wave Machine

December 6, 2012 in Creativity, Curriculum, Ideas, Implementation, Involving Pupils, Leadership, Science by Chris Candlish

My last six weeks have been spent in placement at Ross High School, Tranent. They were probably the most exhausting, grueling yet rewarding six weeks of my academic life so far. It’s felt like trying to squash all four years of my undergrad degree into a month and a half of intense planning, designing and writing, whilst testing my own personal character in endurance, patience and development. The light at the end of the tunnel has been met with mixed emotions – on the one hand, I’m very excited to be getting back to Moray House and seeing friends and colleagues again, swapping stories and sharing experiences, whilst on the other, I’m sad to be leaving Ross High. Only in the last week or so can I say I found myself really getting to know the pupils, finding my groove and establishing myself in the role of ‘teacher’. However, the next few weeks will involve some more ‘traditional’ work for a student, with the second Curriculum Studies Task seeing us through to the new year, before commencing placement two in January.

 

I was lucky enough to have a timetable consisting of one class from each year group first to fourth, with varied abilities between and within classes. This provided me with a wonderfully rounded experience, bursting with highlights. One that cries out to be shared comprises a single task carried out by my third years, but served as an excellent demonstration tool for S2 and was shared across the department. This is a STEM derived wave generator, which is cheap and easy to build, and has a wealth of uses in a broad range of curricular areas: the Jelly Baby Wave Machine!

 

I had a class of 13 mixed ability pupils at the time of construction. The machine itself couldn’t be easier to build – it’s simply a strip of duck tape hung sticky side up between two clamp stands fixed to the bench with G-Clamps. Onto the tape go wooden kebab skewers, about 5cm apart, with jelly babies attached to both ends. I decided to start the lesson with a quick revision of wave characteristics and properties of transverse wave propagation, which we had already covered in previous lessons – alternatively, this would work as a precursor to theory, engaging pupils in the topic with a visual stimulus. I showed a short video clip of how to build it, during which they took notes on what tasks had to be undertaken and their order. We wrote these on the whiteboard and groups were assigned tasks such as:

 

  1. Organisation – since there is a strong interdependency between groups, it’s important to have some pupils in charge of exchanging information and making sure groups are working at a suitable pace.
  2. Calculations – working out the limiting factor, be it the number of jelly babies, skewers or length of tape available, then using this to determine the parameters of our wave machine. This involved taking information from other groups.
  3. Construction – While some of the more technical, planning elements were being undertaken, other pupils began constructing the clamp stands ready for the tape to be attached. They were fixed to two different benches so that their separation could be increased or decreased easily.
  4. Counting – Jelly Babies and skewers had to be counted out and attached together. To make it easier to position the skewers on the tape, their midpoint was marked with a pen.

 

During the exercise, two pupils were very reserved and withdrawn from the groups. It was apparent they felt vulnerable about the task – they were unconfident in the subject already and although they didn’t say anything, I think they felt like they were being put on the spot. Asking them to perform with their peers would highlight their knowledge gap, which made them embarrassed. To overcome this, I gave them the role of Director and Producer and asked them to record the task, from construction through to demonstration. This was a no pressure task which facilitated a more intimate role in the proceedings than simply standing at the side. They could listen and interact as they wished and on several occasions, spotted errors made by other students, boosting their self esteem.

 

The number of tasks related to making the machine is really only limited by your imagination, there is something for every type of learner – hands on construction, mathematical calculations, organisation and some elements of art and design. Even before we have demonstrated the properties of a wave, we have developed some important learning techniques in collaboration and problem solving. Differentiation by task and allowing pupils to establish their own experimental steps and success criteria (AifL), not only gives them the motivation to complete the task, but breaks the learning down into manageable chunks that don’t intimidate them.

 

Once all the elements were complete, the pupils began constructing the wave machine. The tape, carefully measured to fit all the skewers with a 5cm gap between them, was attached to the clamp stands. Extra tape was left on the ends to create little tabs. A good tip here, to make the model reusable, is to put a small strip of paper on the inside of the loops. This way, they will slip on and off the stands more easily by covering up the sticky part. The skewers were laid on using a ruler as a guide. The emphasis at this point was not in the precision of gap size, but making sure the skewers were aligned perpendicular to the tape. When finished, a second layer of tape was laid over the first, securing the skewers in place and making the whole model more robust. And that’s it. It is simple and quick to make, but the pupils really engaged with the task. Having set their own goals at the beginning, I was able to stand back and watch the task evolve with few interjections.

 

The wave machine demonstrates the propagation of a transverse wave – one where the particles of the medium bob up and down, but the transfer of energy moves along the wave, side to side. The Jelly Babies are our particles – moving one of the skewers near the end, in a swift up-down motion, twists the tape. This twisting causes the next skewer to move in the same way as the first, and so on, giving us a visual representation of a smooth, sinusoidal wave traveling horizontally along the tape, comprised only of Jelly Babies moving vertically up and down. During the demonstration, I came back to a question I had been asked at the beginning of the task – “Why are we using Jelly Babies?”. It was a good question, which I hoped they would come to answer for themselves on completing the task. Seeing the wave machine in action, pupils came up with several answers: “They’re colourful, which helps us see them better”, “They’re all the same size”, “They’re gooey, making them stick on!”. I was very happy to hear these statements, as this showed their awareness of the mechanics behind the model – the uniformity of the Jelly Babies makes it easier to find a balance point on the skewer, so that the model at rest lies perfectly flat. Corrections can be made by simply sliding the sweets in or out to adjust the centre of mass. A strong enough wave will also reflect at the boundary, displaying the nature of a wave as it rebounds from a fixed end. You can also create two waves, one at each end, and watch as they interact in the middle. Pupils might expect them to cancel out, so are generally surprised to see each wave survive the ‘collision’ and continue down the tape.

 

In the context of the waves lesson, this was about as much as I wanted to cover. However, I used the wave machine again with a second year class, setting it up myself before the lesson. We discussed many of the same points – energy traveling down the wave, particles up and down – even the specific use of Jelly Babies! Having just introduced refraction in the previous lesson, the class were able to relate the mass of the sweets to the density of the medium through which the wave travels. I had some fantastic questions about replacing the Jelly Babies with elephants and how that would affect the wave. This sparked a discussion where pupils imagined how much more energy it would take to lift an elephant, whether the wave would therefore travel faster or slower and how far would it get before it ran out of energy completely. Next, using their well rehearsed definition of refraction – ‘the changing speed of light as it passes from one material to another’ – we adjusted the model to demonstrate this. By removing Jelly Babies from around about the last third of the tape, you simulate two materials of differing densities. The end with sweets is heavier, like a perspex block, whereas the skewers-only end would represent the air. Now when a wave travels down the tape, pupils can observe any changes as it passes between the two media. The model is good enough to see a clear change in wave speed as it crosses the boundary. In the less dense medium, the wave shape isn’t as smooth, but improves when it reenters the denser material. Though difficult to observe directly, pupils were able to infer this had something to do with a change in wave properties. This can lead to discussions on how an angled transition between materials would cause a direction change – in the case of the wave machine, leave Jelly Babies attached further down one side of the tape than the other – leading to the wave traveling further down the side with fewer sweets, effectively ‘bending’ the wave.

 

All in all, I got about 4 lessons use out of the wave machine, over two year groups in the Waves and EM Spectrum topics. The pupils loved the interactive nature of the model and questions relating to how waves move could be explored physically rather than simply being told the answer. The cost of materials came to less than ten pounds and the G-Clamps were borrowed from CDT, making this an extremely effective, low cost practical with a huge variety of applications in the science classroom. It is one I will most certainly be carrying forward through my teaching career!

 

A Pupil’s Perspective of Learning in the 21st Century

December 5, 2012 in ICT, Ideas, Implementation, Involving Pupils, Leadership, Pedagoo by Jamie Halvorson

I delivered the presentation below with Paul Smith and Laura Turnbull at the recent SELMAS conference in Stirling. We’ve been asked to record it as a screencast and share it here. Enjoy!