Making Classroom Science More Interesting Than TV! [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]
TV science programming for children evolves at a heady pace; and not purely from the perspective of an increasing understanding of the subject. Producers are aware of the declining attention spans of the nation's young minds (the candid may even admit contributing to this decay) and address this with fast-paced, punchy presentation and teasing 'don't try this at home' captioning. 'Explosive' science has become literal; over the past ten years or so, programmes such as Braniac and Ed and Oucho's Excellent Inventions present science methodology that flies in the face of everything that the instructions on the box of my 1970s chemistry set warned me against!
I should state at this point that I am a passionate advocate of science teaching and the institutions that work to promote the subject; however, I begrudgingly concede that the vast majority of children (let alone adults) in this country have never heard of the Royal Institution - the TV programmes Brainiac and Ed & Oucho's Excellent Inventions, for example, have done far more to educate children about scientific matters than the RI has accomplished.
YouTube takes this one step further, presenting a searchable database of easily digested clips that provide a palatable mix of every conceivable application of a science concept - homework that asks pupils to conjure up inventions featuring imaginative uses of science principles has never been so easy!
The supercharged science curriculum presented across the spectrum of TV channels has stolen much of the thunder of the school science teacher. Dwindling budgets and a tendency to recycle lackluster activities from past curriculum planning has left operational science teaching in the classroom standing in the shadow of the box.
Of course, it's now relatively easy to incorporate video into a science lesson. I have observed many excellent introductions to a session that have made effective use of quality science progra mming, from a 2 minute YouTube clip demonstrating the relationship between electricity and magnetism via Faraday's 'induction ring' to the BBC's recent Journey to the centre of the planet presented by the ubiquitous Richard Hammond, the latter being a programme made for adults but with science concepts broken down into child-friendly chunks.
But what has let the majority of these lessons down is the provision made for bright and enquiring minds brought up on this new generation of online and TV science. The high expectation built up by introducing a concept or methodology through an interactive game or whizzy TV clip can lead to palpable disappointment when children are faced with an exercise that asks them to use little of this knowledge in the task given. Most children at KS2 are familiar with the concept of magnetism, having visited it in school during KS1 or through the multitude of TV shows and websites accessible at home (not to mention science toys and kits) tha t explain this phenomenon. Despite this, many pupils are still asked to sort objects into magnetic and non-magnetic sets and investigate the classroom for other possibly magnetic objects as an introduction to KS2 science. In no way am I arguing against revisiting concepts, over-learning and consolidation, but if teachers continue to follow the very dry and uninspiring curriculum advocated in guidance such as the old QCA then they would be doing a massive disservice to our scientifically erudite youth.
I have been incredibly heartened to learn that institutions such as the Royal Society are encouraging schools to bring cutting edge science into the classroom. Projects include a bioreactor built by secondary pupils in Cornwall to test the viability of getting fuel from marine algae. And a particle accelerator is being built by a team of Nottingham teenagers.
Though the recent activity appears to have a Secondary bias, I am hopeful that its positive approach to invi gorating the science curriculum will have a prominent trickle-down effect on the Primary one. If we do not have exciting science teaching from enthused teachers, and the goods to deliver this, then I would be quite concerned that we are in significant danger of disenfranchising, and frankly boring our pupils with what we have to offer in schools.
Related Making Classroom Science More Interesting Than TV! TopicsQuestion by : What do you value more science or pseudoscience? I find it interesting to hear people discredit science, value pseudoscience, and any other magically induced theory/format in order to live some enchanting life. That's interesting, because it's usually these same people that continue to use the tools that science gave them. I know science isn't a strong method in this section, but what do you value more? And if you can say that Science is wrong etc. than why on earth are you using your technological device? Astrology didn't give it to you, parapsychology didn't either. Science did. Best answer for What do you value more science or pseudoscience?:
Answer by MacG
Forget it, dude. Astrology folks don't even understand basic logic, let alone applying it in scientific thought.
Answer by MeteorÃ
Pseudoscience, let us believe in whatever we want, Einstein.
Answer by Pisces ♥ Math
I value science. That is my career. Do you appreciate the irony that you have blocked many of the scientists, intellectuals and mathematicians who frequent this section? Do you fear debating them?
Answer by GibBas
As far as I know, I have never known anyone "on this section" discredit science, ever. Show where or by whom science was said to be wrong. You can't because you are just trying to fudge the issue. Get a life for f---s sake.
Answer by â„'☺♥℮ ℳℯ Ḻø√ε ღε
i curse u 1 thousand timez i have superpowers an from now on every time something bad happenz to u;; u will remember me an pseudoscience u have been cursed azzh0le
Answer by cutiepie
Someday, people on this section are going to get really bored of your questions, and never even bother to answer them anymore, because you're just too close-minded to understand anything we say no matter how MUCH we repeat it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment