Current discourse on t=l (sec) sci ignores decades of research. @BestEvSciTeach host a fab website, not widely enough used, ignored in 'evidence-based practice' discourse.
BEST toolkits provide:
*appropriately-sequenced steps for learning progression
*diagnostic questions to reveal preconceptions and common misunderstandings
*response activities to challenge misunderstandings and encourage conceptual development
I'll give a quick/dirty summary of the available evidence on t+l specific science topics here: follow up on BEST!
Common patterns across the world of students' ($) responses to teaching in particular topics. Often called misconceptions - only some meet criteria for 'concept' tho, others produced on-the-spot in response to teaching. Effective teaching is designed with these patterns in mind
[Current English emphasis on 'neuroscience' completely misses this evidence on subj-specific t+l]
Suggestion: English CCF/ECF for sec science teachers should include this extensive body of evidence about t+l (!)
WHY DO $ RESPOND IN THESE CHARACTERISTIC WAYS TO TEACHING? The Theory Bit:
*Evidence that young $ 'mature out of' some ideas (e.g. Piaget: concept of 'living' moves towards more biological with age)
*Perception: objects DO stop moving when force not applied (at least on Earth)
*Socialisation into ways of talking: 'shut the door to keep the cold out'
*Perception-meets-teaching: gas is continuous (perception), gas made of particles (teaching). Result:
CURRIC SEQUENCING
e.g. when introducing $ to particulate nature of matter start with s and l NOT g because there are much bigger learning challenges.
@BestEvSciTeach have formative ass plus teaching/sequencing materials by topic across p/c/b. Most evaluated. Nat Strats (see last Tweet) all evaluated and evidence-informed.
THE PRACTICE OF TEACHING AND EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH: A THREAD
There’s been about academic research (eg British Educational Research Journal) and its irrelevance and inaccessibility for teachers (and by implication its uselessness). This thread aims to clarify and illuminate.
WHO DOES RESEARCH? (2) Adam Boxer on Twitter: "Ed acaemics shouldn't be surprised teachers don't read their research. They don't find it relevant, useful, accessible, or even interesting. Look at the four most recent blogs on the BERA site: > " /Twitter
RESEARCH AIMS TO PRODUCE RELIABLE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. There are loads of other valuable genres of writing with different purposes. As an academic I contributed to both. Articles can be good or bad in all genres.