View Comments

By robert, July 4, 2010 8:00 pm

Just in time for the end of term – we’ve finished and released the draft of our BTEC Physics module for the 2010 BTEC specs (free BTEC science resources). Click here for BTEC 2010 resources.

As with the other modules, we’ve released our resources and assignments for others to use or adapt.  We’ve tried to link lessons together and put practical work in to our scheme to make it more interesting/motivating for students of all abilities but if  you have any suggestions or ideas for improving it further please take the time to let us know.  Remember that this scheme is an outline scheme written for our students, and you will/should have to personalise it to suit the needs of your students and departments.

This scheme hasn’t been trialled with students yet – it represents a work in progress.  If you use our scheme and you find any mistakes, please let us know so we can upload corrected versions for all to use.

(You can send me messages and files through the contact me form above).  Copyright information is available here.

View Comments

By robert, June 30, 2010 7:46 pm

I picked up a nice big glossy folder of GCSE information from Edexcel as I left school today.  Having heard the Chief Examiner speak at a conference recently, the pack offered no surprises as I flicked through.  However my attention was drawn to the following information (which I snapped with my phone):

Free plans for every lesson.  Yes, FREE PLANS FOR EVERY LESSON.  Whilst I can see that this could be a godsend for the busy teacher, I can’t help but feel that this is a bad move for the quality of science education as a whole.

When the QCA published schemes of work years ago, departments followed them for a variety of reasons.  Common reasons for following the centrally produced schemes included saving time, schemes safe from criticism from Ofsted, and having an inexperienced department.  Few schools followed them because they liked them.  Their main effect was to stifle creativity and push teachers towards delivering identical lessons regardless of area, school or setting.

My concern is that by publishing GCSE lesson plans examination companies are appealing to the same inexperienced, time pressed departments who want to play safe.  I worry that this will snuff out what little spark of creativity we have left in science education and mark a return in teaching centrally produced lesson plans (except this time they will be from the examination board rather than the QCA).

I hope that schools will take the opportunity to flick through the lesson plans and steal all the best bits for their own lessons, but will continue to embrace the opportunities for creative and individual teaching that our science education community badly needs.

I’d be interested to hear views from current science teachers, either for or against.  Please leave a comment below (no registration required) with your opinions.

View Comments

By robert, June 2, 2010 4:46 pm

I was asked an interesting question by another science AST within our authority.  He wanted to share some of the materials he had been generating and was interested in getting the Nottinghamshire ASTs to follow a common approach.  He came to me for advice since he knows I have a web-site on which I actively share nearly all of my resources.

One of the questions we need to answer before we look for a solution is who will be sharing?  Will it be Science ASTs as a group of Nottinghamshire employees, will it be the Science ASTs acting as a group of individuals or does the LA want a county wide solution?  I’m assuming for now that we will be sharing resources as a group of interested teachers with a common goal.

Fragmentation is common online and sharing resources/getting your message across can be extremely difficult.  I’ve not succeeded in getting more than 100 visitors a day to my blog, and 150 a day to my resources site.  Of those that do visit my site, many science teachers are looking for a quick fix – to download a resource that meets an immediate need.  They aren’t bothered in improving their practice – just in taking the easy road.  I’d rather they do this with decent resources than not, so I don’t really mind – but it does make it difficult to get your message across.

The options we are considering are listed below.

As a matter of interest I looked at where the visitors come from to find my blog.

I then looked at similar data for my resources site

My figures seem to suggest that good visibility on Google is more important than the high number of visitors coming to the TES site.  Perhaps we should consider this as we make our decision.

I’d be interested to hear from other people who share resources and ideas.  What method should the Nottinghamshire ASTs use to share their resources and advice?  What have you found that works?  What advice could you give us?

View Comments

By robert, May 31, 2010 12:38 pm

I came across this book as a result of someone posting messages on the TES forums.  I decided to check out the book, especially as Hodder make this very easy – you can sign up for an E-inspection copy and get access to the book on screen for 30 days.  Whilst this does not give the same experience as flicking through a paper copy, it does provide a very useful insight into the book. (Click here for more information)

It is interesting to see that the book is quite different from the Edexcel one.  Note that I say different, not better.  How you rate the book will depend on for what you intend to use the book, and the teaching styles of the department.  The emphasis of the book is more of a teaching resource than a reference resource.  As a result there is less factual information and content in the book, but more ideas of assignments.  For those that are serious about the vocational aspect of BTEC, the book also links topics with appropriate science careers, and is probably worth keeping a single copy in the department for this reason alone.  I’d rate the quality of the assessment tasks more highly than Edexcel book (especially P1,M1,D1 of the core physics module! If you’ve got the Edexcel book you’ll know what I mean!)

As I said above, how useful this book is will depend on how you deliver BTEC within the department.  The Edexcel was more of a traditional text book matched to BTEC, almost with assessment material added as an afterthought.  The Hodder book feels much more like a teaching resources, and has more teaching sequences that you could use with students, or that students could follow independently.  Of course using the text book as the primary teaching method could mean significant investment in a resource that could be out of date as soon as the specifications change again.

Would I buy the book?  I think in my last review I made my dislike of text books obvious.  Whilst they are useful for cover lessons or occasional use, I can’t imagine a modern and forward thinking department using text books as the primary teaching method.  I’d recommend science departments to check out both of the BTEC books and buy a set that most suits the use to which they will be put (e.g. cover lessons)