What Makes an Effective Science Lesson Final

of 20
What Makes an Effective Science Lesson
A suitable metric for effectiveness
Given the totality of their influence, it is unsurprising that the concept of an effective lesson for England
and Wales is defined by Ofsted. The statutory responsibilities entailed in the national curriculum that
Ofsted enforce mean that classroom teachers take particular note of their views (Hussain, 2012) and the
competitive nature of school performance tables, which are characterised by the Ofsted rating, ensure
management within schools focus particularly on their criteria for success (Perryman, Ball, Maguire &
Braun, 2011). Consequently, my understanding of what determines an effective science lesson will utilise
the guidance given by Ofsted as a working definition.
Ofsted inspectors are the judges of “overall effectiveness” (Ofsted, 2015, p. 33) and are primarily
evaluating how the school and teaching responds to, “individual needs by observing how well it helps all
[emphasis added] pupils to make progress and fulfil their potential” (Ofsted, 2015, p. 34). As such,
judging a lesson as effective means that all learners make progress and reach their potential. In general,
however, girls’ attainment in all science courses at KS4 is greater than that of boys. This fluctuates from
one percentage point, when girls undertake separate sciences, to 14 percent points in GCSE additional
applied science when compared to boys’ attainment (Ofsted, 2013a). Notably, the proportion of girls
undertaking separate science GCSEs has increased since 2005 from 41-45% to 50% in 2014 (DoE, 2016).
If we categorise all students progressing and fulfilling their potential as effective; on a gender binary
between girls and boys it would seem from the data presented that science education has been successful
in increasing participation and attainment of girls. Therefore, greater emphasis should be added to helping
boys within science education. Yet subject choice at A-level, which has a greater influence on earning
power than GCSE attainment (Dolton & Vignoles, 2002), show that girls only make up 20% of students
progressing on to A-level physics (IoP, 2013). The figures for girls choosing to progress to A-levels in
Chemistry and Biology is 9.4% and 13.8% respectively (Ofsted, 2013b). Although girls’ attainment at
GCSE science is greater than that of boys, we can see that earning potential, which is increased by
undertaking further studies in the science, is lessened due girls’ subject choices past KS4. Therefore, one
could argue that an acceptable metric to measure the effectiveness of a science lesson should ultimately
be on the uptake of girls in further studies of science so they can “fulfil their potential” (Ofsted, 2015, p.
34). Furthermore, Ofsted priorities the development of confidence for learners within and without the
learning environment specifying a focus on ‘personal development, behaviour and welfare’ (2016, p.14).
Consequently, responding to the continued gender disparity in terms of employment in the sciences after
school requires attendance to the personal development needs of girls from within the classroom.

of 20
Objections and Critiques
Several objections may be levelled at this choice of metric. The age of which students choose what
options they want to take at further study can be as early as primary education age (Maltese & Tai, 2010).
This can be partly explained by societal prejudices and attitudes towards certain gender norms related to
occupation choice (IoP, 2015), which in turn may be a major factor that depresses the number of girls
taking science in further education. It may seem that this is a fair criticism as such societal prejudices —
which are formed early in a child’s development — are outside the control of a science educator in
secondary school. Yet studies which employ longitudinal methodologies have shown that the majority of
students do not make such decisions at such an early age (Homer & Ryder, 2014). Cleaves (2005) showed
that only 20% of students which undertake further science study had a clear intention of doing so at Y9.
Another study (Tai, Qi Liu, Maltese & Fan, 2006) showed that out of those with a STEM degree by the
age of 25 only 17% had an intension of doing so at Y8. Therefore, from the evidence it is clear that
classroom lessons at KS3/4 play a role in determining choice of further study.
A further criticism may be levelled at this choice of metric from a pragmatic viewpoint. This report will
include a small case study of only several lessons from one class. Therefore, due to time constraints upon
this work it is impossible to measure against this metric what impact the chosen teaching pedagogy has
had. Although this might seem like the strongest objection against my chosen metric of effectiveness,
any metric of effectiveness would also be open to similar contentions with such a small sample of lessons.
Coe et al. (2014) argue that effectiveness of teaching and learning can only be measured by the impact
upon the students’ outcomes which can be verified. In short, quantitative assessment. This inherently
implies formal summative assessments or longitudinal studies which cannot be administered during the
period of the case study. Thus, any metric of effectiveness chosen would not fulfil a meaningful
quantitative test. Therefore, there will have to be qualitative methods utilized which do not directly equate
to Coe et al.’s idea of a suitable metric but which would hope to correspond ultimately to student
outcomes which can be verified.
Before I outline these qualitative techniques it would be best to visit the pedagogical research to inform
the choice of desirable qualitative learning outcomes that would eventually correspond to increasing more
girls taking science post KS4.
Gendered learning
Many investigative studies have been carried out which empirically show that boys and girls have differing
approaches to learning (Zohar & Sela, 2003) and learning styles (Jones, Howe & Rua, 2000). The evidence

of 20
shows that in general girls are “more relational and cooperative and less competitive than boys” (Brotman
& Moore, 2007, p. 1).
It has been shown that female students feel more comfortable in practical lessons rather than lessons
which are dominated with transmission teaching (Takruri-Rizk, Jensen & Booth, 2008). Feeling
comfortable is the foundation of productive learning (Maslow, 1943) for all students yet this is more
acute for girls as they suffer a large degradation of confidence in their abilities during adolescence with
only 29 percent of high school girls having confidence in their ability compared to 49% of boys (Kommer,
2006).
The Institute of Physics (2006, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015) have completed research into how classroom
teachers can produce an effective, secure learning environment to support girls. Their suggestions are
inline with those of De la Paz (2012, p. 9) who suggests:
• Encourage young girls to ask questions about the world, to problem solve, and to use natural
creativity through play, creativity, and experimentation.
• Foster girls' internal assets such as confidence, self-esteem, initiative, and a work ethic.
• Show girls that what they want out of their careers can be achieved through STEM.
• Recognise that many girls prefer working in groups and collaborating with others to solve
problems.
To address these points raised by De la Paz I will visit Vygotsky’s (1978) theory for development of
cognition as this stresses the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of comprehension.
This will allow me to develop and synthesize Osbourne’s (2014) view that science educators should
facilitate learning through problem solving through creativity and questioning of the natural world rather
than teaching as if science is a fixed dogma of facts to learn. This will allow for collaborative learning
which should allow the students to increase their self-esteem and meet Ofsted requirement of fostering
personal development in the classroom (Ofsted, 2016). Many girls feel that science is generally a ‘boys’
subject suggesting they feel that careers in STEM cannot be achieved (Tanggaard, 2006). Therefore, I will
visit the Growth Mindset outlined by Dweck (2012) and Brookfield’s (1995) view of teaching so as to
expand critical thought which is inline with the Ofsted (2013a) view to harbour curiosity and critical
thought about the natural world.

of 20
Social interactions, Development and Critical Thought
Vygotsky (1978) contends that community and social interactions play the central role in cognitive
development. Vygotsky argues that "learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of
developing culturally organised, specifically human psychological function" (1978, p. 90). That being,
social development is a precursor to cognitive development. This stresses that learning is best attained
through collaboration and inquiry with peers. This is in contrast to Piaget’s (1958) idea of ‘Theory of
Cognitive Development’ where development is though a universal stage theory of cognitive development
which are necessary to travel though. Vygotsky’s view of social learning and development is therefore
more tied with being able to allow girls to foster confidence, self-esteem and work-ethic though inquiry
with peers. It can be understood from a view point of “Combined and Uneven Development” (Trotsky,
2007, p. 42) that development of society, and by extension the individuals in the classroom, will differ
from student to student and therefore through discussion and challenging ideas will lead to a more
harmonious development.
The use of communication in pedagogical research, especially science teaching, is highlighted in the works
of Osbourne (2014), Newman (1999) and Rotheram (2014). Osbourne highlights how social interaction
within the development of science is rarely taught and science education is seen as a, “dogma, a set of
unequivocal, uncontested and unquestioned facts” (Osbourne, 2014, p. 54). This attitude to science is in
direct opposition to fostering a creative, problem solving attitude to science education which would
increase girls’ participation and achievement. Osbourne argues that, “questioning is a process that
supports learning by helping to engender cognitive dissonance” (Osbourne, 2014, p.55) which would
fulfil Ofsted's criterium for increased attention to personal development, behaviour and welfare (2016,
p.14). Newman (1999) makes a clear distinction between the Transmission model of teaching — teacher
led, lecturing style — and the Constructive model that sees the position of the teacher as a facilitator for
the students to discover and argue with peers about natural phenomena. The development of
conversation, peer discussion, and analysis is far more common in humanity subjects (Bramley, Rodeiro
& Vitello, 2015) which girls in particular opt for after KS4 (Ofsted, 2013b). Therefore, developing the
pedagogical approaches of Osbourne, Newman, Rotheram and Vygotsky within the teaching practice of
science means addressing the challenges outlined by De la Paz and the IoP.
Growth Mindset and Critical Reflection
Carol Dweck’s development of the Growth Mindset was based upon empirical research that showed
people’s personal beliefs about themselves had a powerful impact upon attainment and choices (Dweck,
2000). Her research showed that students who had high self confidence and believed that intelligence

of 20
was not innate but learnt through challenging oneself had far greater attainment levels and self-esteem.
This is in contrast to the Fixed Mindset that Dweck (2012) characterised as the belief that intelligence is
genetically ascribed. The idea of the Growth Mindset is aligned with increasing girls’ self confidence and
development of challenge and creative thought. Creativity and believing that challenging work is
productive are, “skills young people should be encouraged to develop through formal education”
(Manning, Glackin & Dillon, 2009, p. 53), that in turn would address concerns with girls’ low-esteem and
creativity characterised by the IoP and De la Paz reports on increasing girls’ attainment in sciences post
KS4.
Brookfield (1995, p1) argues that the key task for education is to “change the world” and to progressively
develop society. Brookfield’s model of reflection is pertinent to enabling girls within the classroom to
develop to fulfil their full potential. Brookfield proposes four methods, or lens, which a teacher can use
to reflect to become a critical educator. I have chosen Brookfield’s lens of reflection through “our
students’ eyes” (Brookfield, 1995, p. 30) as one method of reflection for my short course of lessons I will
deliver. When applying Brookfield’s lens of the student it ensures that we need to be prepared to listen
to what they have to say or to consider the learning process from their perspective (Trevitt, 1995). This
method posits that as a critical teacher your practice will be one of a facilitator as girls benefit from group
discussions more so than from Transmission teaching. Also, being mindful of the perspective of the girls
in the classroom will ensure that you highlight the role women have played within the development of
science. This will show them that women can succeed in science which is an important point highlighted
by the IoP (2015).
Case Study
Composition of the Class
The class chosen for this case study was a mixed ability year 7 class with an equal number of female and
male students numbering 30 in total. With regards to its student population, the school is ‘much larger-
than-average, the number of boys and girls is approximately equal, and it has a lower proportion of
students for whom the school receives the pupil premium than found nationally’ (Ofsted, 2013c). In both
lessons under reflection here, the students were undertaking content outlined in Science Programmes of Study:
Key Stage 3 (DoE, 2013a). The lesson plans for these lessons can be found in Appendix A and Appendix
B.

of 20
Effective Measure
As outlined above, there cannot be any meaningful quantitative metric employed during this case study
which would signify increased attainment post KS4, due to its scope. Therefore, the choice of utilizing
Brookfield’s (1995) reflective lens model forces the educator to consider the student’s perspective
concretely. The explicit nature of Brookfield’s approach is the reason for employing this method in
counterpoise to using Gibbs’ (1988) and Kolb’s (1984) methodology where consideration of the students’
views is not compulsory. Indeed, Brookfield’s method can be argued to be the best barometer to the
confidence and self-esteem that the students possess – which are vital aspects to increasing participation
in science post KS4 for girls, and are why Ofsted (2012) emphasise these aspects in their statutory reports
on schools.
A questionnaire to gauge the students’ view prior and after the short sequence of lessons would have
been a fitting exercise if one was focused on quantitative assessment as a metric. However, this form of
assessment was judged by myself and the classroom teacher to be inappropriate if commenced in the
lesson due to a lack of time, consequential to the practical components of the lesson. We also deemed a
questionnaire unsuitable as homework as there was already an appropriate homework set which would
consolidate the students’ learning and allow them to research scientific careers related to their interests.
As such, the students’ view was gauged through questioning during the practical component of the
lessons and through the increase of knowledge in careers related to the scientific field.
Autobiography View and Theoretical Perspectives
It was my purpose in these lessons to ensure that all students, specifically the female students, were
engaged with the course material. By employing a dynamic use of of questioning, peer discussion,
community and social interaction, science as a mode of discovery, and examples of jobs within the
scientific community, it was hoped to increase participation of women post-KS4 as these are seen to
increase girls’ self-esteem and confidence in science as outlined in the literature above, especially by De
la Paz (2012).
It is my view that the lessons were well planned with clear aims and occasions to review progress of the
students towards those aims which are conditions set in the Teachers’ Standards 4 & 6 (DoE, 2013b). An
ethos of team work and social interaction was embedded in the lessons through the use of time for
partner discussion before student feedback to the class and the demand in the practical exercises to work
as a team to discover previously unknown knowledge. This ensured that I met Osborne’s (2014) view
that science should not be taught as a set of unequivocal facts which are predetermined, Takruri-Rizk et

of 20
al.’s (2008) conception of engaging students through discovery in contrast to Transmission teaching, and
Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of learning though community and social interaction.
I utilised the starter of the first lesson in order to assess the pupils’ initial understanding of what careers
exist in relation to the sciences and the scientific community. To further the students understanding I
embedded jobs related science in both lessons and set a related research task as homework. This was
done in order to meet the suggestions of the IoP (2015). A number of students found the starter initially
inaccessible as it heavily relied on prior knowledge which may not have been taught in school. This was
overcome in part though partner discussion yet I did not see this as a major barrier to learning. Through
employing Dweck’s (2012) growth mindset I ensured there was time for the students to review what they
had learned from their research task homework and compared this to their initial knowledge. The aim of
this exercise was to increase the self-esteem and confidence of the students who found the work initially
inaccessible as I demonstrated their progress and explained that it was progress made which is important,
not your initial starting point.
Highlighting the practicality of science to the students’ everyday lives featured heavily within both lessons.
This was done in part though showing a short video from a leading female employee from the Food
Standards Agency on the ‘horse meat scandal’, relating acids and alkalis to household items, and role-
playing testing for food poisoning in soup from a nefarious manufacturer in Sheffield. I thought these
aspects of the lessons went extremely well as there was a noted increase in participation from students,
particularly the female students, who had previously been less engaged. I believe this is because I
deliberately chose non-traditional gender specific examples as highlighted as good practice by the IoP
(2015).
A successful questioning technique can take many forms; open, closed, directed, and indirect are but a
few ways that questions are used to great effect. A students’ genuine inquisitive question for
understanding which may fall outside the scope of the curriculum – or at best be tangential to it – are
hard to invoke from a teacher’s perspective, unless the students are fully engaged. The creativity,
confidence and self-esteem required for students to ask these questions has to be of a high level
(Anderson et al., 2001) and are highlighted by the IoP (2012, 2013) and De la Paz (2012) as a way to
further engage with female students to allow them to further develop a genuine interest in science. In
my lessons I did experience several inquisitive questions specifically related to the ‘horse meat scandal’
and acidity of household items. Unfortunately, due to time constraints imposed on the lesson, and in one
case lack of knowledge on my behalf, I was unable to fully engage with these questions. This was a failure
in my practice as I could have ensured that I made a note of these questions, provide the answers to the
students the next lesson through a written means (to ensure that I can progress with the set lessons

of 20
material), and explain to the student when I am free to discuss further if they wish. Alternatively, and in
fitting with the desired outcomes of this study, I could have asked the student to find out the answer to
their own question, further increasing independence, confidence and the desire to engage with science
beyond the classroom.
Fellow Professionals’ View
I reflected upon the delivered lessons with the classroom teacher at our weekly arranged mentor meeting.
Not reviewing the lessons immediately was not a conscious choice but imposed due to our timetables.
Even though this arrangement was imposed it had its merits as I was forced to document my feelings to
ensure that I could remember them. This impetus allowed me to reflect at a deeper level than I would
usually do, thus provided for a richer reflective process.
My mentor is currently developing a coaching approach to their practice which facilitates, in Griffiths’
view (2005), a process of unlocking and maximizing a person’s potential. This method of coaching, as
opposed to a hierarchal structural view of mentoring, help students “to learn rather than teaching them”
(Whitmore, 2002, p. 8) which is inline with Takruri-Rizk et al.’s (2008) approach to increasing confidence
in students’ abilities as outlined earlier. This approach to mentoring has allowed myself to become a self-
critical learner yet does not lend its self directly to Brookfield’s method for reflection as explicit feedback
of how my mentor saw the outcomes of the lesson were limited.
Direct feedback of the lessons stated that the lessons were, “good, well paced, suitably differentiated, and
there was an atmosphere created that was positive and supportive.” From this view I believe I fulfilled
the criteria for increasing confidence of all students and hence female students also.
Logistics concerning groupings within the practical work portion of the lessons were noted to be a point
of improvement. I elected to have the students chose their own groups for the practical work in the
belief that this would allow the students, particular the female students, to feel comfortable in their
learning environment. This posed certain problems which had previously not been considered. For
example, the time taken for the students to self-arrange was not considered by myself in the first lesson
and thus introduced additional time pressures upon the activities which could have been mitigated if prior
arrangements had been made. In the second lesson’s practical I tried to circumvent the same problem by
stating that the students should be in the same groups as the previous week. This created additional
problems due to friendship groups being extremely flexible, absentee students between the two lessons,
and lack of recall of which groups they had been in previously.

of 20
Upon reflection of this part of the lesson, myself and the mentor concluded that the intension of creating
a comfortable learning environment through self-elected groups is good practice. Yet conditions, such as
classroom dynamics, age, and maturity of the class, are considerations which could mean that imposed
groupings could foster a comfortable learning environment more effectively as outside classroom
conflicts can be sidestepped or negated in part.
Students’ View
Explicit discussions with students in the lesson about what they enjoy are limited due to many factors.
Anecdotally, it is stated by teachers that there are acute time constraints imposed due to the volume of
material to cover in the science curriculum and therefore time for student feedback is limited. There is
also evidence (Bjork, Dunlosky & Kornell, 2013) that points to learners not being the best judges of their
own learning. This enforces the common hierarchical prejudice (Snellman & Ekehammar, 2005) in
society — which reflects itself in the dichotomy of teacher and student — which serves to undermine
the importance of student feedback. It is my belief that consideration of the students’ view is integral to
ensuring that effective learning takes place. Therefore, although I am guarded against failing into the
hierarchical prejudice trap, it is harder to not prioritise gauging students’ views explicitly in the lesson due
to time constraints I self-impose.
Nonetheless, explicitly asking the students is not the only way to understand if the students are enjoying
the lesson (Reeve, 2012). Increased participation and engagement in tasks, excitement when entering the
classroom, tangential questions and the lack of low level behavioral disturbances can be ways of gauging
the students’ view albeit not in an explicitly measurable way. In both lessons there was a marked decrease
in low level behavioral disturbances and an increase in questioning from the students. In the preceding
lessons from the case study there was also a noticeable drop in engagement when the students realised
that there was not going to be a practical component to the lesson. Therefore, the students view of these
lessons was positive. They enjoyed the lessons which is a precursor to continuing studies in later life.
Summary
Ultimately, I found the exercise of focusing on one particular subset of students to increase their
participation post-KS4 very instructive to my teaching practice. It allowed me to understand certain
challenges facing science educators which I previously had limited knowledge of. It forced me to develop
teaching tools such as being a facilitator of learning, learning though creativity, and developing the non-
dogmatic view of science in students. Although I had a previous prejudice for these tools and practices I
had not consciously adopted these in my practice prior to the case study.

of 20
The use of Brookfield (1995) as a reflective model had its challenges as I felt there was an aspect of
artificially separating the different lenses. For example, the autobiography (my view) lens felt devoid of
content before I married this view with that of a theoretical lens and I found it almost impossible to
separate how I felt about the effectiveness of the lessons from the feedback that I obtained verbally from
the students’ during the lesson. In the future, it would be instructive to write more fluidly within the four
lenses ensuring that I take all of the perspectives into account without the rigidity of considering them
discreetly.
Word count: 4158

of 20
References
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R.,
Raths, J., Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Bjork, R.A, Dunlosky, J. & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and
Illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417-444.
Bramley, T., Vidal Rodeiro, C.L., & Vitello, S. (2015). Gender differences in GCSE. Cambridge
Assessment Research Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment.
Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brotman, J.S. & Moore, F.M. (2008). Girls and Science: A Review of Four Themes in the Science
Education Literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971-1002.
Cleaves, A. (2005). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of
Science Education, 27(4), 471-486.
Coe, R. Aloisi, C. Higgins, S. & Major, L.M. (2014). What makes great teaching? Review of the
underpinning research. Sutton Trust. Retrieved from
http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/great-teaching.
De La Paz, K. (2012). Girls in STEM: Unlocking Potential. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72, 9-
10.
Department of Education - DoE. (2016). National Pupil Database. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518368/NPD_
Data_Sources_by_Year.xlsx.
Department of Education - DoE. (2014). The National Curriculum. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381754/SECO
NDARY_national_curriculum.pdf.

of 20
Department of Education - DoE. (2013a). Science programmes of study: key stage 3. National curriculum in
England. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/335174/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Science_220714.pdf
Department of Education - DoE. (2013b). Teachers’ Standards. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283566/Teachers_standard_informati
on.pdf
Dolton, P.J. & Vignoles, A. (2002). The return on post–compulsory school mathematics study.
Economica, 69 (273), 113-142.
Dweck, C.S. (2012). Mindset. Cambridge: Constable & Robinson.
Dweck, C.S. (2000). Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Philadelphia:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Further Education
Unit. Oxford Polytechnic: Oxford.
Griffiths, K. (2005). Personal coaching: A model for effective learning. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 55-
65.
Homer, M. & Ryder, J. (2014). Twenty First Century Science and progression to science. Nuffield
Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/twenty-first-century-science-and-
progression-science-levels.
Hussain, I. (2012). School inspections: can we trust Ofsted reports? CentrePiece, 16(3), 10-13.
Institute of Physics - IoP. (2015). Opening Doors: A guide to good practice in countering gender stereotyping in
schools. Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/reports-and-
research/opening-doors/page_66438.html.
Institute of Physics - IoP. (2013). Closing Doors: Exploring gender and subject choice in schools. Retrieved
from http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2013/closingdoors/.

of 20
Institute of Physics - IoP. (2012). It’s Different for Girls: The influence of schools. Retrieved from
http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/different/page_61620.html.
Institute of Physics - IoP. (2009). Girls into Physics: Action Research. Retrieved from
http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/action_research/page_41736.html.
Institute of Physics - IoP. (2006). Girls in the Physics Classroom: A review of the research on girls’
participation in physics. Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics
/review/page_41597.html.
Jones, M.G., Howe, A., & Rua, M.J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests,
and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180–192.
Kolb, D.A., (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kommer, D. (2006). Boys and Girls Together: A Case for Creating Gender- Friendly Middle
School Classrooms, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, 79(6), 247-251.
Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of early interest in science.
International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669-685.
Manning, A. Glackin, M. & Dillon, J. (2009). Creative science lessons? Prospective teachers reflect
on good practice. School Science Review, 90(332), 53-58.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50, 370-396. Retrieved
from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm
Newman, D. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International
Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Ofsted. (2016). The common inspection framework: education, skills and early years. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461767/The_c
ommon_inspection_framework_education_skills_and_early_years.pdf.

of 20
Ofsted. (2015). School inspection handbook. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457199/School_inspection_handbook.pdf.
Ofsted. (2013a). Maintaining curiosity: A survey into science education in schools. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/379164/Mainta
ining_20curiosity_20a_20survey_20into_20science_20education_20in_20schools.pdf.
Ofsted. (2013b). A-level subject take-up: Numbers and proportions of girls and boys studying A-level subjects in
England. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/426646/A_level_subject_take-up.pdf.
Ofsted. (2013c). School report: High Storrs School. Retrieved from https://www.google.co.uk/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiKkq7JqYXRAhUXMlAKHUmgD
r8QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Freports.ofsted.gov.uk%2Fprovider%2Ffiles%2F2292557%
2Furn%2F107139.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEt-xqTwxSrB3BVeJA2ueXlusr0_A&sig2=rZXXzrscxD87j
ZWRx2lmrg.
Ofsted. (2012). Learner View: helping learners have a voice. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/
government/news/learner-view-helping-learners-have-a-voice.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching critical thinking? New directions in science education. School Science
Review number, 352, 53-62.
Perryman, J. Ball, S. Maguire, M. & Braun, A. (2011). Life in the Pressure Cooker – School League
Tables and English and Mathematics Teachers’ Responses to Accountability in a Results-Driven
Era. British Journal Of Educational Studies, 59(2), 179-195.
Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. AMC, 10(12).
Snellman, A. & Ekehammar, B. (2005). Ethnic Hierarchies, Ethnic Prejudice, and Social Dominance
Orientation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15(1), 83–94.
Reeve, J. (2012). A Self-determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement. In Christenson,
S.L., Reschly, A.L. & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (149-172). Boston:
Springer.

of 20
Rotheram, K. (2014). The Teaching, Learning and Creativity (TLC) Model for Science. School Science
Review, 95(353), 79-84.
Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Career choice: enhanced: Planning early for
careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143-1144. doi: 10.1126/science.1128690.
Takruri-Rizk, H. Jensen, K. & Booth, K. (2008). Gendered learning experience of engineering and
technology students. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 38(1), 40-52.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/10.1145/1361255.1361257.
Tanggaard, L. (2006). Situating gendered learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning,
18(4), 220 - 234.
Trevitt, C. (2007). What is critically reflective teaching? Oxford: University of Oxford. Retrieved from
https://www.learning.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwadminoxacuk/localsites/oxfordlearninginstitute
/documents/supportresources/lecturersteachingstaff/resources/resources/CriticallyReflectiveTeac
hing.pdf.
Trotsky, L. (2007). The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects. Seattle: IMG Publications.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Whitmore, J. (2002). Coaching for Performance. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Zohar, A., & Sela, D. (2003). Her physics, his physics: Gender issues in Israeli advanced placement
physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 245–268.

of 20
Appendix A
Teacher Name: S. Shaw & E. Padmore
Subject: Science
Day/Date: 30/11/16
Group: 7MEX
Period: P1
No. in group: 30
THE BIG PICTURE

Food and Digestion
CURRENT TARGETS

To ensure that all students (specifically the female
students) are engaged with the course material through
use of questioning, peer discussion, community and
social interaction, and examples of jobs within the
scientific community.
LESSON AIM: What is your key/enquiry question?

• To introduce the notion that there are varied jobs within the scientific community.
• Working scientifically and safely in practical work.
• To introduce the concept that, one can conduct tests on food to know what it is comprised of.
• To introduce the impacts that the scientific community has upon food standards.

LEARNING OUTCOMES: (levels and/or all/most/some)

1. All students will be able to demonstrate they know one job related to science.
2. All students will be able to say that we can test foods to see what it is made from.
3. All students will be able to highlight correct protective equipment needed to work
safely in this practical.
4. Most students will be able to demonstrate working scientifically in the practical
component of the lesson.
5. Most students will be able to verbally explain the importance of food tests and the
food standards agency.
6. Some students will be able to critically self-reflect upon their practical work through
well structured written language.

KEYWORDS:

Starch
Protein
Glucose
Safety
Food standards
RESOURCES REQUIRED

Food and Digestion PowerPoint
Food and Digestion WS (x 32)
Food and Digestion Differentiated WS (x 5)
Whiteboards and marker pens (x 30)
Soup practical materials outlined in the High Storrs
practical handbook.

LINKS TO PROGRAMME OF STUDY

KS3 – Block one for Y7 students

of 20
Time:

8:55-
9:00

9:00-
9:03

9:03-
9:05

9:05-
9:10
START

Starter: Title and Date in your books.

Write down as many jobs that you know that have to do with science that you know
in your books. Pictures of people doing ‘scientific’ jobs on the board for scaffolding
of learning to help differentiation and to ensure that all students have at least one
concept in their books to build up confidence of the students.

Draw a line under your work and close your books.

Now discuss with your partner next to you for two minutes what jobs you had down
and how you knew about that sort of job.

Open your books and write down additional jobs that you may not have though of.

One minute to write on the whiteboard one job in science that you are most
interested in. Whiteboards used to ensure that all students are engaged in the
lesson.

Closed questioning of jobs on the whiteboards answers. Questioning used to foster
peer discussion and ping ponging of ideas. The whiteboards are used so the
classroom teacher can see similar jobs and ask the students if they had heard
considered various differing jobs.
Which LO is
addressed?

1

This is
assessed
though
marking of
books, use of
whiteboards
and open and
closed
questioning
from the
classroom
teacher.

9:10-
9:12

9:12-
9:17

9:17-
9:20

9:20-
9:23

9:23-
9:43

9:43-
9:50
MIDDLE (Learning Activities)

Practical introduction: Food poising: Soup is not soup-er!

Introduction of role play (from the classroom teacher) that there has been a serious
outbreak of food poisoning in Sheffield (North of the city is they become concerned
for their own safety) from soup that has traces of protein present

Explanation from the classroom teacher of the three different food tests that they
will be using to determine what soup has protein present.

Working safely: Give the students one minute to discuss what they will need to do
to ensure that they are working safely during the practical. Inform students that
they will be asked at random to ensure that all students are engaged.

Working scientifically: Give the students one minute to discuss what they will need
to do to ensure that they are working scientifically during the practical. Inform
students that they will be asked at random to ensure that all students are engaged.
Classroom teacher will highlight this is not a race but we need to work together to
ensure that we get the correct results to save the children of Sheffield from food
poisoning!

Practical: Inform the students that they have to work in main groups of 6. These
groups will then be split into working pairs. The pairs will conduct one tests on each
soup and collaborate with their findings in their main group. This will also introduce
the concept of science working in a community and science as a method of
discovery. The introduction of feeding back results to a group will also motivate the
students not to let their team down with out it being a competitive atmosphere.

Results: Students are told to ensure that their results are in their books. They are
given the working scientific criteria which the class posed earlier in the lesson to
write a sentence on what went well (WWW) and even better if (EBI)

2, 5

3

4

3, 4

6

of 20

9:50-
9:54

9:54-
9:55
END (Plenary)

Industry food testing: Short video of women from food standards agency on the
horse meet scandal in Tesco burgers. This should highlight the importance of jobs
within the scientific community which the students were unaware of before.

Homework: Inform the students that they will have a homework due in the next
lesson which will be emailed to them today.

3

DIFFERENTIATION
What provision has been made in the lesson for
differentiation?

Questioning is differentiated.
Worksheets handed out levelled to ability
Scaffolding through pictures on the PowerPoint
Seating plan allows pairing of students with differing
abilities to help each other.
Written text on the board are kept to limited, yet
well structured, language.
Use of practical work for kinesthetic learners.

SUPPORT
Which individuals need particular support and how will
it be given? How will TAs be used?

TA will be send PowerPoint presentation and
worksheets prior to the lesson.

When a practical is taking place the TA will be informed
and sent information prior to the lesson.

Student NB will be used as a student teacher to help AB
in the practical session.
HOMEWORK:

Research five differing specific jobs within the scientific community which you are interested in. This needs to be
presented in your books with an example of where you found this information.

For example: I am interested in food. There are jobs in the Food Standards Agency which use science to test
what a type of food is made from. I found this information from the Food Standards Agency website.

Deadline: Next weeks lesson. Monday 5
th
December (5/12/16) period 1.

Students with no homework: N/A

of 20

Appendix B

Teacher Name: S. Shaw & E. Padmore
Subject: Science
Day/Date: 5/12/16
Group: 7MEX
Period: P1
No. in group: 30
THE BIG PICTURE

Acids and Alkaline Substances
CURRENT TARGETS

To ensure that all students (specifically the female
students) are engaged with the course material through
use of questioning, peer discussion, community and
social interaction, and examples of jobs within the
scientific community.
LESSON AIM: What is your key/enquiry question?

• To emphasize the notion that there are varied jobs within the scientific community.
• Working scientifically and safely in practical work.
• To introduce the concept that, one can categorize different materials into acids and alkalis.

LEARNING OUTCOMES: (levels and/or all/most/some)

1. All students will be able to name one household acid
2. All students will be able to name one household alkali
3. All students will be able to work safely during the practical
4. Most students will be able to name a job related to science and health
5. Some students will be able to engage in a discussion on differing experimental
results.

KEYWORDS:

Acid
Alkaline
Alkali

RESOURCES REQUIRED

Acids and Alkaline PowerPoint
Acids and Alkaline WS (x 32)
Acids and Alkaline Differentiated WS (x 5)
Whiteboards and marker pens (x 30)
Acids and Alkaline materials outlined in the High
Storrs practical handbook.

LINKS TO PROGRAMME OF STUDY

KS3 – Block one for Y7 students
Time:

8:55-
9:00
START

Starter: Title and Date in your books.

Collection of homework’s: Ask students to get out their homework and the
classroom teacher will collect them.
Which LO is
addressed?

of 20

9:00-
9:10

9:10-
9:18

9:18-
9:25

9:25-
9:28

9:28-
9:33

9:33-
9:50
MIDDLE (Learning Activities)

Copy definition of acid from the board.

Household acids: Let the students have 2 minutes to think of household items that
can also be characterized as an acid. After the 2 minutes are over let them have two
further minute to discuss with their partners what they thought and to write a
different household item from their partner on their whiteboards. Review of what
was written on the whiteboards by the classroom teacher. Picture of acidic
household items that we eat.

Household alkalis: Introduction of household alkalis from a picture. These
household items are generally considered more dangerous, such as, bleach etc.
Give the students 2 minutes to discuss which they think are more dangerous and
why. Inform the students that they will be being asked at random to ensure that all
students are engaged.

Acid or Alkali: Ask the students to write down on their whiteboards if they think
skin, blood, tears, and the liquid in our stomachs are acids or alkalis. Review from
the front by the classroom teacher of the characteristics of skin etc.

Medical jobs: Information given on how the acidity levels in blood can be a sign of
illness. Link this to medical physics in hospitals, doctors and nurses. Image of female
doctor and medical physicist with a male nurse.

Working scientifically and safely: Give the students to three minutes to discuss and
write on their whiteboards things to consider when working scientifically and safely.
Working safely and scientifically are highlighted by the classroom teacher from the
student’s work.

Practical: Using universal indicator to test an unknown substance to determine if it
is an acid or alkali.

1

2

4

3

3

9:50-
9:55

END (Plenary)

Results: Feed back from the students on what they discovered. See if the results
disagreed and have the students discuss in partners why they think different
students go different results. Explanation from the classroom teacher on scientists
not always agreeing and the importance of peer review.

5

DIFFERENTIATION
What provision has been made in the lesson for
differentiation?

Questioning is differentiated.
Worksheets handed out levelled to ability
Scaffolding through pictures on the PowerPoint
Seating plan allows pairing of students with differing
abilities to help each other.
Written text on the board are kept to limited, yet
well structured, language.
Use of practical work for kinesthetic learners.

SUPPORT
Which individuals need particular support and how will
it be given? How will TAs be used?

TA will be send PowerPoint presentation and
worksheets prior to the lesson.

When a practical is taking place the TA will be informed
and sent information prior to the lesson.

Student NB will be used as a student teacher to help AB
in the practical session.
HOMEWORK:

Deadline: This lesson Monday 5
th
December (5/12/16) period 1.

Students with no homework: Marked on the whiteboard and in the teacher’s planner.

What Makes an Effective Science Lesson Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to What Makes an Effective Science Lesson Final

Similar to What Makes an Effective Science Lesson Final (20)

What Makes an Effective Science Lesson Final