This is what proper Pedagogical Content Knowledge looks like. It is absolute where it can be and heralds warnings where it can only be vague. Much of the debate in the article is not about rival researchers opinions but is about the balance between serving the needs of the student and the needs of the content.
I have chosen to re-read this as I am in the throws of re-writing our Scheme of Work for KS3 on this. As I roughed out the content , and began to consider the misconceptions it was necessary for me to get back to the basics. What do we know about the teaching of this subject? I have started to compile the highlights so that the rest of my department can quickly see why (and how) decisions were made in the creation of this part of the curriculum. Energy is one of the topics that all science teachers find awkward. Especially since the content is has changed: not as the result of what Energy is, but as a result of how it should be taught. So as a result textbooks and resources have traditionally dealt with "forms or types of energy" i.e. it is a type of "stuff" , which on the whole is now frowned upon (Yes the vague "on the whole" is intended as there are moments where describing a “quasi material substance” is a "good enough model") . This is what this article addressees, and it is therefore a very good read.
Find it here: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/129328/1/2005_Millar_Teaching_about_energy.pdf
My notes are as yet unfinished, but can be found on the slides below:
For a muchmore thorough treaty of teaching Energy Neil Atkin does a fantastic job here: https://www.neilatkin.com/2016/06/09/teaching-energy-new-approach/
“If the only justification for an activity is that it is supposed to encourage thinking, drop it and replace it with an activity that advances students’ understanding or that increases their mastery of a useful tool” Bereiter 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment