In the following assignment I will be outlining the children I worked with: ages, previous classroom experience and ability.

University Degree Education and Teaching

Materials

In the following assignment I will be outlining the children I worked with: ages, previous classroom experience and ability. I will state the reasons for choosing materials as a topic and analyse the children’s understanding and knowledge both before and after their science lesson. I will then go on to analyse my role as a teacher, the successes and the weaknesses.

The Children

I started with five year three children: S, J, ST, G and O. All the children were aged eight. Their abilities were based on literacy skills and ability groupings. Their previous year two teacher had been ill for quite some time subsequently the class had had quite a few supply teachers. The continuity of teaching was not there and so the class teacher and I thought it best to go with elicitation and assessments gained in literacy, see Appendix A. These would enable me to ascertain who would need extra synonyms and who would need help in completing written work. This assignment was completed in November 2003 and I had only worked with these children for two weeks prior to the commencement of this science task. Through these weeks I had gathered that these children liked to talk and the chosen topic should include this medium. As it was, the next whole topic to follow on the school’s long-term plans was materials. Appendix B shows the progression from rocks onto materials and the follow on topic, which was to be springs and magnets. The NC outlines this as grouping and classifying materials, 1a: compare materials on the basis of there properties and relate them to everyday uses.

Children’s Ideas On Materials

Considering that each child from the time it was born has had some contact with its environment you would expect that there was some amount of historical background. Therefore comparing materials and relating them to everyday uses would include ideas and concepts built on childhood experiences. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development outlines that all children are on a quest to enhance their knowledge and to compartmentalise it to gain higher understanding. As Hetherington and Parke, 1999 sate:

Piaget believed that children play an active role in accomplishing this enormous task; that is, rather than passively wait to take in information from their environment, they continuously and actively seek out information and adapt it to the knowledge they already have.

This would mean that from the oral fixation in infancy children are already selecting similarities, usually size or colour. This then according to Piaget and Vygotsky would then be developed through time and interaction with other people to become internalised and an abstract word would encompass the interpreted grouping. So words and experiences have a profound effect on the historical knowledge of any child who comes to the beginning of a materials lesson. Burton, 2001 states that the common misconceptions of children are to either take the word material too literally or to describe a material improperly, for instance metals:

Metals are cold or if you leave them in the sun they can feel very hot. Page 36

What should be said about metals is that they are good conductors of heat. But you can imagine the tiny fingers exploring their surroundings and compartmentalising the chosen object made of metal into too hot, do not touch, or cold. Just sight or word association can trigger these mental operations of previous experience to solve new problems, for instance if a drinking vessel looks like glass then it must be glass. The association of an object material relating to the word, I would expect, would be a huge misconception. In previous times this would have been true but manufacturing has advanced but the English vocabulary has not adapted. Anne Qualter (1996) highlights the historical language baggage of our society and its knock on effect in relation to what children think and perceive as meaning. Television and the mass media with its colloquialisms only add to this cloudy pool. The Nuffield Primary Science guide (1993) explores children’s language relating to materials. Most interestingly was the description of a spoon. Two explanations for one metal spoon:

Spoons can be any size from a baby spoon to a tablespoon…

Is this description a media, social remembrance or a colloquialism? What ever it is it these names have been acquired by association. Pam Wadsworth (1994), see appendix a, goes on further and classifies children’s ideas as anthropomorphic, egocentric, colloquialisms, experienced based or stylised representations. As each child is an individual one or more of these ideas or views may pop up. Only through elicitation can I truly find out what my group of year three’s think.

The Elicitation

There was evidence of egocentric thought, colloquialisms previous ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Spoons can be any size from a baby spoon to a tablespoon…

The Elicitation

There was evidence of egocentric thought, colloquialisms previous experience and language baggage in the groups deciphering of what material an object or thing was made from. When S suggested that God made hair and that God makes you, see appendix B. She related to the self (ego) and to colloquialisms. Much like the Nuffield Primary Science spoon example children will use historical thought from others to make sense or to describe. Her colloquialism came from attending Sunday school and her family, which are religious; the question of what hair is made out posed an internal debate for me! G’s idea that hair is made from brain (appendix B) is based on limited experience of the human structure but he thought laterally: hair grows from something! The closest substance would be the brain. So just one material, hair, and two different interpretations as to what hair is made from I have to admit I didn’t expect this one to pop up. Language inconsistencies on the other hand I did anticipate. O was sure that because a drinking vessel looked like a glass it should be made from glass:

This is glass; it is made out of glass. Apendix B

He held it, assessed it by looking through it but was still convinced that truisms occur in language in relation to materials. By asking him to explain why he thought he was correct I found out that he based his understanding on previous experience with a similar object.

Because it looks like a glass I have at home.

Burton (2001) conquers with this idea that children expect certain objects to be certain materials. So O’s misconception has undertones of language baggage linking the object to historical experiences. You would think that this kind of entrenched thinking would have permeated his ability to debate an unknown material. Not true. O was quite sure, when the rest of the group were not, that string was not made from string.

O: No! This is a flowerpot; it is not a flowerpot.

He has differentiated between the object and the material. There is a conscious discovery that the language used to determine a pictorial representation in the minds eye does not correspond with the material. There is an element of frustration over how to deduce what something is made of. The rest of the group however were happy to believe that there is such a material as string and rationalized it by comparing card.

S: But this is card and it is made out of card.

Laughter.

Home limited experience, Wadsworth (1994), was also evident. Burton (2001) may have highlighted the misconception between heat and metals but he did not outline that children make these connections through the home. St highlights the home interpretation by explaining that metals heat up tea when there is a power cut!

St: If you have a power cut then you have warm stuff.

Did he not see the boiled water go into the flask! Surely if you have a power cut then how would you boil water? Maybe they have gas! If you have gas why would you need to insulate your tea! Interesting isn’t it when objects are only brought out to do specific jobs what inferences children make. It seems that S, G, St and O will look for learnt knowledge through suggested viewpoints already outlined and then deduct new information based on historical information. They understand that objects are made from different substances and can recognise familiar non-confrontational materials, but get stuck on how to scale down the area of scope in the unfamiliar. This is something I need to address in their learning. Nobel (1991) reiterates the Goethe idea of wholeness in science and stipulates that:

In his research he did not concentrate one-sidedly on the object itself but above all on objects set into their whole context. Page 110

My learning as a teacher

My aim in my teaching was to portray materials in their entirety. I wanted to convey a sense of beginning, which could be developed in future lessons. By using the elicitation as a guide I focussed on the classification grid, which is outlined in Littledyke et al., 2000 pages 60-61. Although it may seem a little high brow for year threes I believed it to be the best way to convey a higher thinking: a theological, spiritual understanding. Childs (1991) advocates this higher learning and states:

The teacher should not hesitate to speak of ideals to the children which they will not understand, but which they will probably recall later. (Page112)

The grid enabled the children to go beyond the senses and to judge and reason. Which helps them to break through into questioning and hypothesizing. As Nobel (1996) states:

In contexts of knowledge it is a matter of inner, invisible knowledge, as opposed to outer, observable knowledge. (Page 164)

As hair was one of the misconceptions, only explanation would suffice as opposed to practical experience of origin. Through using the grid I was able to bring O and G into a zone where they could reason and ask questions, see appendix? It is these questions, which enlighten the rest of the group. AS Vygotsky states (1987) states:

Higher mental functions arise as forms of co-operative activity. Only later are they transformed by the child into the sphere of his own mental activity. (Page 126)

I am pleased that O questioned origins of materials and spoke openly. G was able to reason, which was a breakthrough. S although guessed some answers she was reorganising her thinking. St may have been quieter than the others but he was still listening and building those higher mental functions. I am pleased that I used the grid.

The ability to perceive the origins of materials and then the feeling, through the senses, was something that I actively worked on, see appendix? By planning what I wanted the children to hear, see, touch and then externalise through drawing I feel that interest and commitment to learning was achieved. The pace of the lesson was high but never frenzied. I used an approach, which was akin to Steiner, s (1986) idea that knowledge can only be obtained by having the subjective and objective in insoluble union. By adding the Vygotsky theory of talk I feel I have a better understanding as to where the next lesson could progress to, see appendix? This style of teaching is not something that I would immediately think of but it achieved the results I wanted and was therefore successful.

If I were doing the lesson again I would sub divide the life polymers box into once was living and made by scientists. By resizing the grid to wall display size I could use it as a reference point. Then when the children went on to grouping objects via their properties a comparison could be made. Although my preparation was good I feel it could still do with improvement.

I tackled comparison of properties verbally in the plenary. Although it was informal and highly charged due to the nature of playing devil’s advocate I feel that the plenary could have been best used to reflect and evaluate what was already covered. This is I feel a weakness on my behalf as Cockburn, 2001 states:

Explanations following experience give pupils a concrete experience to relate to. (Page 196)

This would also have linked back to Steiner’s listening to gain knowledge. Only upon reflection after the lesson did I feel that the talking,Vygotsky, plenary was better used in conjunction with questions that reflect.

What the children learnt

It is this wholeness approach that I wanted the children to understand. This would enable them to deduce through the process of elimination where objects originated from which, in turn would enable them to understand why certain materials were chosen. I wanted to clear up misconceptions by giving the children tools to decipher unknown objects. Through making a grouping table I was able to get the children to question their own understanding. Previously S thought that hair had come from a heavenly body and that it was a substance beyond categorising. Appendix c shows how her thinking has changed and she can now give it a scientific name and group it accordingly. This allows me as a teacher to progress further and investigate the properties of hair and to refine which sub division of life polymer she believes hair to fall into. Infinitely better than God made it! The grouping table helped with deduction skills this is evident in both O and G, see appendix C as they question which box wood would go into. Their interaction and explanation is all part of the scientific process and it enabled them to not depend on appearance for justification of a material. S still needs a little more concrete experience to be able to retrace the origin of a material but at least she is thinking beyond what she see’s:

Me: Where would you put glass?

S: Is it a life polymer?

I think entrenched knowledge needs to come out before it can be worked on and for S and St listening to the other members of the group is a beginning. Lave (1993) argues:

Situated learning is usually unintentional and occurs as individuals come to participate more and more in a “community of practice”.

The idea of wholeness and that every material has an origin needs developing in S and St as St went quiet and S guessed.

O: What is a diamond made from?

Me: Any ideas anyone?

S: Is it a rock?

Me: What makes you say that?

S: You see it on television: look at my rock?

S still falls back on colloquialisms but at least she moved on from an object being named only by its material. She could have said that a diamond is made out of diamond material. She is trying to think beyond what is apparent. The National Curriculum does not stipulate that children need to know where objects or materials originate. Through the elicitation it became apparent that the group needed to know more than just what the curriculum wanted them to learn. This coincides with Steiner’s idea, (Childs 1998) that education should concentrate on the child and what it wanted to be.

The National Curriculum objective for the children, to compare everyday materials on the basis of their properties and relate these properties to everyday materials, was done by observation, investigation and then interpretation through colour. The children’s learning is as follows:

O was able to modify his understanding of a material, see Appendix? He predicted that glass would break and that, by comparison, plastic can look like glass but it is more flexible.

O: It was transparent and it looked like glass but it was flexible, it didn’t smash.

The drawing of the CD (Appendix?) shows that O has related the flexibility of the plastic ruler and has transferred this understanding onto the chosen object. He has used properties to describe what he knows to be true about the plastic material. His everyday choice of object was multicoloured the use of colour illustrates that O has thought about the relationship between the description of the words and the sight connection, for example opaque. I would describe O as a level one rising working towards level two.

S is also a level one working towards a level two. She shows good understanding of the properties of plastic and has demonstrated through her drawing/description of a drinking vessel that plastic can be hard as well as flexible, see Appendix? This draws reference from the intervention demonstration of the breaking glass versus plastic. She was able to group objects in relation to their materials, see Appendix? and has developed understanding of where materials originate from. The inclusion of “made by a scientist” in her description/ drawing, Appendix? demonstrates this.

ST also developed better understanding of the properties of materials by describing metal as shiny yet also hard, see appendices? and? In his drawing/description he also chose to include that the spanner conducted electricity. This shows that he investigated his object and was able to see beyond the initial visual observation to find out what metals can do in relation to electrical conductivity. So he can pick out a material, name it, describe it and investigate it further. I would level St as level one rising to level two. His groupings still need work and we have not yet covered heating or mixing materials.

G can also be best described as level one rising to level two because we have not yet investigated melting. His level description is based on his ability to illustrate the properties of an everyday object, hammer see Appendix?,. Through colour and labelling he has shown the relationship between worded properties and the properties of wood and metal. As the hammer has two materials it is commendable that he has labelled accurately, notice opaque and hard float in between the wood and metal, whilst once living and shiny are definitely placed next to the co-ordinating material. This shows understanding and comparing skills.