Help! I need Ideas for science lectures

[Unregistered]

I am looking for new ways to present my lessons to my students in my science class. They are becoming bored with the same techniques for giving lectures and notes. They are not always engaged when I am giving notes on the overhead. Any ideas that would get them more involved in my lessons?

[Lisa's Hotscakes]

Higher-order Blooms taxonomy. They're not engaged because the level of questioning is either too low or too sparse. You need to constantly ask questions and try to make them think hard. Use peer-shares for the really high-order questions. In a 50 minute session you should ask roughly 50 questions.

Direct instruction is both effective and efficient, so stick with it if you think that is your style.

[Unregistered]

I use powerpoint with hidden words. I make it a game and use varied presentations. I also have the kids take my notes and develop a powerpoint presentation. Use a tic-tac-toe to let them chose how they take in the information. If you need copies, email me at sciencerockslsms@hotmail.com

[Lisa's Hotscakes]

I use powerpoint with hidden words.

Can you clarify?

[Demetra McCoy]

You must continue to add lecture to your lessons. However use a variety of lectures. You can do a powerpoint presentation, use an outline using a transparency, or Lecture through demonstration. Remember when doing any type of science lesson we must include some form of lecture, guided, practice and individual practice, and some form of evaluation. One thing I have grown acustomed to using this year is a layered curriculum which allows you to lecture for about 15 minutes and give students individual practice. You can even include notes as a part of your lecture and give students points in a layered curriculum., A layered curriculum allows students to acquire learning on their own by exploring the teachers topic in great detail. This has really worked wonders in my classroom. Dr. Kathie Nunley has a fantastic site www.help4teachers.com

[Lisa's Hotscakes]

However use a variety of lectures. You can do a powerpoint presentation, use an outline using a transparency, or Lecture through demonstration.

It sounds like you are describing approaches to address the students' multitude of learning styles. I think this is an effective approach and a must for any teacher.

Remember when doing any type of science lesson we must include some form of lecture, guided, practice and individual practice, and some form of evaluation.

IMO, the evalution should comprise scores of questions asked throughout the lesson, not just at the end. Students should be picked at random, otherwise it isn't true evaluation. But I agree that a formal evaluation at the end is necessary to find out if the students learned the material.

I checked out the Layered Curriculum page and it looks extraordinarily complicated. She has three layers of assignments (each corresponding to a different order of Blooms Taxonomy apparently) and within each layer another multitude of assignments. For example:

This layer includes hands-on activities for the tactile learners, video and art projects for the visual learners and optional lectures for the auditory learners. Include textbook assignments for students who prefer this traditional method of learning. Include at least one assignment that must be done in any language except English.

Who is going to write all these assignments? Who is going to grade them?

The sample lesson at http://www.help4teachers.com/MandE.htm may be the most confounding lesson plan I have ever seen. Most of the A-level activities fail to demonstrate any real proficiency on the subject matter.

The aspect of this approach that I really dislike is the freedom to choose a C. Under no circumstances should a teacher allow a student to choose a low grade.

That's my opinion.

[Unregistered]

I thought a "C" was average. I consider "Ds" and "Fs" to be low grades.

Regardless, students should not be allowed to simply choose to be average. We want our children to try and excel, don't we? How do we do that when we tell them that they can choose to simply be average?

[Unregistered]

It sounds like you are describing approaches to address the students' multitude of learning styles. I think this is an effective approach and a must for any teacher.



IMO, the evalution should comprise scores of questions asked throughout the lesson, not just at the end. Students should be picked at random, otherwise it isn't true evaluation. But I agree that a formal evaluation at the end is necessary to find out if the students learned the material.

I checked out the Layered Curriculum page and it looks extraordinarily complicated. She has three layers of assignments (each corresponding to a different order of Blooms Taxonomy apparently) and within each layer another multitude of assignments. For example:

This layer includes hands-on activities for the tactile learners, video and art projects for the visual learners and optional lectures for the auditory learners. Include textbook assignments for students who prefer this traditional method of learning. Include at least one assignment that must be done in any language except English.

Who is going to write all these assignments? Who is going to grade them?

The sample lesson at http://www.help4teachers.com/MandE.htm may be the most confounding lesson plan I have ever seen. Most of the A-level activities fail to demonstrate any real proficiency on the subject matter.

The aspect of this approach that I really dislike is the freedom to choose a C. Under no circumstances should a teacher allow a student to choose a low grade.

That's my opinion.
O.K. I also checked out the site.

I did not see anything about a student choosing a C. What I did see were three groups of activities labeled: A, B and C. These were not grade levels, but placement levels. Students would be given assignments based on their personal skill levels or strengths in learning.

The grading examples used a point system. It reminded me of the system ome of my high school AP English and CP English teachers used. We were given a syllabus and when we had an assignment we could look at the section descrbing what a paper earning an A would include, a B, etc. We never chose to get a C. We did our best to make sure we included everything we were suposed to. We knew that our teacher would be consistent when handing out grades. There was consistency for every assignment. We also knew what grade we would deserve if we missed any of the criteria.

This style allows the teacher to be consistent and not base Joey's grade on a comparison of his work to Sally's work.

The teacher is able to hold the student accountable. And the student has a constant to support any complaints if he did meet the requirements and the teacher made a mistake.

[Unregistered]

My problem with this approach was the phrase "Listen to the lecture" that appears in many of the lesson plans. Listening to a lecture on audio tape is not learning, and is certainly not teaching. How does the teacher check for understanding throughout the audio tape delivery?

The sample lesson plans feature no real teaching. Just listen to an audio tape or read a chapter, then apply knowledge to complete certain projects. Of course, when students are asked to evaluate a roller coaster for safety, they don't really know how because they really don't understand the physical laws. I would bet my left arm that the majority of papers turned in by these students display no real understanding of the lesson content.

[Unregistered]

O.K. I also checked out the site.

I did not see anything about a student choosing a C. What I did see were three groups of activities labeled: A, B and C. These were not grade levels, but placement levels. Students would be given assignments based on their personal skill levels or strengths in learning.

The grading examples used a point system. It reminded me of the system ome of my high school AP English and CP English teachers used. We were given a syllabus and when we had an assignment we could look at the section descrbing what a paper earning an A would include, a B, etc. We never chose to get a C. We did our best to make sure we included everything we were suposed to. We knew that our teacher would be consistent when handing out grades. There was consistency for every assignment. We also knew what grade we would deserve if we missed any of the criteria.

This style allows the teacher to be consistent and not base Joey's grade on a comparison of his work to Sally's work.

The teacher is able to hold the student accountable. And the student has a constant to support any complaints if he did meet the requirements and the teacher made a mistake.
I take back what I posted earlier. I looked farther into the site.

The only way I see the layered affect working is if an individual assignment is broken down into layers (as was the case in my H.S. classes -- over 10 years ago). I would have to agree that allowing a student to pick an assignment that they could make no greater than a C on would be unwise. Each and every assignment should include the chance to make a perfect grade.

That being said, I can see the advantage of the different learning centers (listening to taped lectures, watching video, computer, etc). However, before this would work the teacher would have to give instruction in active listening, require note taking, etc.

[Unregistered]

That being said, I can see the advantage of the different learning centers (listening to taped lectures, watching video, computer, etc). However, before this would work the teacher would have to give instruction in active listening, require note taking, etc.

Even if they are master listeners and superior note-takers, that is no guarantee that they are understanding the lesson to the extent they can then apply the knowledge to projects. This is my real problem with this approach -- there is little ability for the teachers to monitor understanding during the lesson delivery, and even harder to use sufficient cognitive strategies to overcome barriers to understanding.

Consider the lesson on conservation of momentum. It is damn hard to explain this concept without tons of teaching strategies, and even harder to explain without some students becoming confused. The very concept of the "system" in collision problems is hard enough to understand. I see no way to listen to an audiotape and learn this concept to a high degree of proficiency. Instead, we have to question students thoroughly to monitor their progress while we explain, elaborate, demonstrate, and model the content. In other words, real teaching.

So students listen to the audiotape and have understood every word, but they still don't get it. Now they work on projects, but the results are worthless because they are applying a concept they really don't understand.

[Unregistered]

I'm not saying that I would allow a student to "just get by" with a C. I'm saying for argument's sake, that a C is not a "bad grade", it is simply average... why else would it be in the middle of the grading scale.

Fair enough.

For me, using a layered curriculum is about accountability..and not just the teacher's. It puts the responsibility where it should, on the child. If a parent comes in for Parent-Teacher conferences and wants to know why Johnny only got a "C", the teacher has documentation to back her up and say, that Johnny didn't apply himself nor did he strive for better than a C.

Or the teacher didn't teach the lesson sufficiently well. Could that be a possibility?

If not, then the state should consider firing us all and replacing us with anyone that has a pulse. If teaching skill has no significant impact on student achievement, then we aren't needed.

And if teaching skill really does have a significant impact, then teachers such as myself should share the blame when test scores are poor. We can't have it both ways.

I am so sick of when a child does well on a standardized test, everyone is quick to pat little Johnny on the back... But if little Johnny does NOTHING in class all year and does poorly, these same folks are quick to point the finger at the teacher and say that he or she did not do his or her job...

I prefer to praise both teacher and child when they do well, and point the finger at both when they don't. We should share the praise and the blame.

Now, if the vast majority of students do well, then maybe Johnny's poor performance isn't a reflection on the instruction. But if scores are low...

I love my job and I do my job, I can even say in most areas I go above and beyond the call of duty... But we as teachers can only do so much...I'm not making excuses..

If your students do poorly on standardized tests (or even our own tests), then any attempt to deflect the blame is very much tantamount to making excuses. That is the very definition of excuse-making.

[Unregistered]

So students listen to the audiotape and have understood every word, but they still don't get it. Now they work on projects, but the results are worthless because they are applying a concept they really don't understand.
No. If they still didn't get it they should be able to talk to their teacher before proceeding. I wouldn't look at the various methods as lone instruction for the child who chooses it. I think a student should have the option of choosing more than one type of instruction. And it is not as if the teacher would not be around to answer questions and explain anything that was needed.

[Unregistered]

No. If they still didn't get it they should be able to talk to their teacher before proceeding.

Three problems: (1) The teacher is busy trying to monitor various projects, (2) the student may not realize he doesn't get it, (3) not all students ask for clarification when they need it.

While listening to the audio tape, the students may understand the words and think they get it. To be certain, teachers need to interrupt the tape and asks pointed questions to see if they truly understand the material. But that is very hard to do, if not impossible, because there are a dozen students listening to different parts of the tape at the same time.

I wouldn't look at the various methods as lone instruction for the child who chooses it. I think a student should have the option of choosing more than one type of instruction. And it is not as if the teacher would not be around to answer questions and explain anything that was needed.

Being around to answer questions is NOT checking for understanding. We shouldn't wait until the students are confused and request help (if they bother to ask for help at all) -- we should verify understanding continuously so that students don't become confused in the first place.

[Unregistered]

Here is the quote that caught my eye:

It puts the responsibility where it should, on the child.

If we place all of the responsibility on the child (which your quote suggests), then we are saying the child should perform well no matter the instruction. This is absurd, since only the brightest children can perform well after being exposed to substandard teaching.

Placing the responsibility on the child is just setting up the excuse--if scores are low it is the children's fault.

[Unregistered]

If I were to touch on every single thing that could/should/would go on in the classroom, then I would be writing a book. However, this is a forum not an editor's desk. I have chosen to try to keep my posts brief. Please do not assume that if an aspect of teaching is not addressed in my post that I do not think it is important. You could have asked if I felt the teacher should check for understanding.

[Unregistered]

Okay, let's go back to square one: If students are listening to a lecture on tape, how does the teacher check for understanding during (and not just after) the lesson delivery?

[Unregistered]

All I have said... and have continued to say is that we as teachers can't be 100% responsible for what a child learns in a classroom (or what they demonstrate to know on a single standardized test... The child has to take some of the responsibility. I'm not disagreeing with accountability.. Hold me accountable, but I can't take all of the blame... nor can I take all of the credit...

Now, I know how Lisa feels on this board...

I wish I had never started posting.... :( :( :(

I have in fact started removing all of my previous posts. When I'm done, I won't be back.
The way I see it, we all have different opinions. No two people are alike. Sometimes people will agree with me and sometimes people will not agree. I find that I learn a lot from seeing a subject from different points of view. Some things I believe are absolute. However, I think that different teaching techniques work in different situations. Also, it would be naive of me to think that others will always agree with me.

Brandi

[Unregistered]

Again, the problem is the quote:

It puts the responsibility where it should, on the child.

Maybe you didn't mean it, but this quote certainly implies that the child, not the teacher, is responsible for poor performance. And that is all I was pointing out.

[Unregistered]

I ask again, "If students are listening to a lecture on tape, how does the teacher check for understanding during (and not just after) the lesson delivery?"

This is a simple question that lies at the heart of my problems with the layered method.

And while it is true that we each have our own style, any teaching method that doesn't provide teachers an opportunity to check student understanding during the time students are learning is going to fail more often than naught.

In my opinion, of course.

[Unregistered]

Perhaps we should all "sign" our names at the end of our posts. That way we don't keep addressing all the unregistered posters as if they were one and the same person. I have posted without "signing" and with my name but not all of the unsigned posts are mine.

Brandi

[BLBO]

If the problem is "signing or not", why not register???? It's easy and it's free.... Not that I'm going to have any benefit from it anymore...


Well, I did register but then had some problems with my password not working. Because of that, I wasn't logging in. I think I have resolved the issue.

I'm not sure if I had responded in an offensive manner to any of your posts.
Just in case I have, I apologize. I am also big on context. If I ever take something anyone says out of context, please let me know and I will take another look and fix anything that needs fixing.

[Unregistered]

Josie, you changed your tune once again. Now you are saying that the child IS responsible, but earlier stated "The child has to take SOME of the responsibility." (my emphasis)

Either the child is fully responsible, or not.

But if a child chooses to tune me out for whatever reason, and chooses not to participate, I can not be held responsible for that child's poor performance on the standardized tests. I AM, but I don't think that is fair.

For whatever reason? Suppose the child tuned you out because you didn't use engaging teaching methods. Are you saying that you bear no responsibility for his performance?

I can't believe I'm reading this. If a teacher does nothing to engage his students, and the students subsequently tune out, the students are to blame?

[drcubbin]

As an Earth science teacher, it is all too obvious that the terms used in class rarely reflect the magnitude or magnificance of objects in our classroom. Geysers, calderas and icebergs are often just words to be memorized. A computer, laptop and plus-sized screen in conjunction with a well-organized Power Point presentation gives live to science in a way that many students have never seen and may never see again.

[Unregistered]

I am looking for new ways to present my lessons to my students in my science class. They are becoming bored with the same techniques for giving lectures and notes. They are not always engaged when I am giving notes on the overhead. Any ideas that would get them more involved in my lessons?

You could always give them guided notes. They don't have to copy all of the notes, (which becomes boring) but they fill in the blanks while you are doing your discussion. That works most of the time for me.

Also, you could try using graphic organizers which allow you to give your notes while at the same time allowing your students to draw pictures describing your topics.

[Unregistered]

First of all, you shouldn't "give" a lecture.

Second, the overhead projector can be a dreadfully boring device for presenting.

Instead of worrying about delivery, I was trained to think about questioning and active participation. Try combining higher order questions with peer shares. Get the kids doing something (e.g., talking about the content with their friends and answering questions).

[trisha]

one can start with experiments where children can observe different things around them and can make a presentation on that:)

[Unregistered]

one can start with experiments where children can observe different things around them and can make a presentation on that

Sure, if you happen to be teaching first grade.

[Unregistered]

Here is the quote that caught my eye:



If we place all of the responsibility on the child (which your quote suggests), then we are saying the child should perform well no matter the instruction. This is absurd, since only the brightest children can perform well after being exposed to substandard teaching.

Placing the responsibility on the child is just setting up the excuse--if scores are low it is the children's fault.

Good teaching does NOT mean lecturing. Even if you do lecture and ask questions, it still does not mean that students understand a lick of it. Giving choice means that students may be more motivated to learn, as they often are not when being subjected to a lecture.

[Unregistered]

Again, the problem is the quote:



Maybe you didn't mean it, but this quote certainly implies that the child, not the teacher, is responsible for poor performance. And that is all I was pointing out.

I completely agree that the problem lies with the child, and probably parents as well. If I am responsible for every child then I might as well do it for them. Wait, that is my para's job to do the work for them. I forgot. Oops, but when they still refuse to do the work we pass them to the next grade anyway!

[Unregistered]

If I am responsible for every child then I might as well do it for them.

You were hired by your district to teach your students. While your students are in your class, you are responsible for instilling in them knowledge of the lesson content to a certain degree of proficiency.

[Unregistered]

You were hired by your district to teach your students. While your students are in your class, you are responsible for instilling in them knowledge of the lesson content to a certain degree of proficiency.


"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

We could try different approaches until our heads explode, but there will always be those children who either can't get it or refuse to try.

[Unregistered]

We could try different approaches until our heads explode, but there will always be those children who either can't get it or refuse to try.

Sure, there might be a very small number of students that resist every effort, but if too many students refuse to drink, then the problem lies with the person leading them to water.

[Sokzep]

Too early...

[LKaufmann]

I am looking for new ways to present my lessons to my students in my science class. They are becoming bored with the same techniques for giving lectures and notes. They are not always engaged when I am giving notes on the overhead. Any ideas that would get them more involved in my lessons?

What science are you teaching?

[Terohn]

hey i now im probaly off topic but im desperate....... where how can i make liquid nitrogen. plz respond

[Unregistered]

Wow! I have to say I'm amazed at some of the misguided perceptions on this forum. When a teacher asked for some help, the discussion turned into a nit-picking over lectures and who is more responsible for learning, the teacher or the student. As far as Layered Curriculum, most of the people questioning its value in the learning process obviously don't understand it or the research behind it. Layered Curriculum is a type of differentiated instruction, and its not that complicated. One other thought to the poster who seemed hyper-concerned whether students listening to a taped lecture were understanding the content. It's simple...break the 'lecture' into short segments and then question the students about the content. You will quickly know if they understand. Finally, I believe students are 100 per cent responsible for the learning. On the other hand, teachers are 100 per cent responsible for the decisions that enable learning to occur.

[Instructorus Rex]

Apply the science! Break lectures up as much as possible by actually demonstrating how to apply those seemingly abstract concepts in a concrete way. If it's boring for you to teach it's even more boring for your students to learn.