AIBU to be tearing my hair out over this Y5 homework? (Evolution)

[sauvignonBlinko]

DS has been given this homework worksheet and it's been causing us a bit of angst because DS insists his teacher told him that woolly mammoths evolved into elephants and elk evolved into deer, etc (grr!)

We've had some discussion about "common ancestors" and I've helped him to write something a bit more accurate but I expect it'll all be marked wrong, and most of the kids will be none the wiser by the end of the exercise. [Sigh!]

Wild Boar was an interesting one. Apparently they did evolve into domestic pigs, but wild boar have died out and been reintroduced into Britain several times and there's currently a thriving population, so which box should he tick? I persuaded DS to tick both boxes 1 & 3 in the end (which DS is a bit about), and we've been debating whether to tick box 4 too. It'll be interesting to see what the teacher considers to be the "right" answer!

If it was intended as a Critical Thinking homework I'd be thrilled. But it's not.

[Saciperere]

My children have workbooks. Each chapter has information, excersises, experiments or extension projects, discussion topics for class debate, group work, more information to research (books, website or video), links to other parts of the curriculum and references. The teacher works through the chapter and assigns parts like experiments, projects or debate prep for homework. The books are updated every year. It works well. I know exactly what they're learning, they can go back over what they've learnt or show me something they didn't understand. It's put together by pedagogists and university professors, so less room for errors and random teacher believed "facts". I'm sure this is common in a lot of countries. Textbooks do not mean the same dusty books given out every year like it was in the 70's

[MaryTheCanary]

"Science text books go out of date too quickly. Schools can't afford to update them every time a new edition is published."

Except that around the world, countless school systems use textbooks without this ever being a problem.

Primary school children are not learning about quarks and string theory--they are learning about gravity and planets and the difference between mammals and reptiles.

On the rare occasion when something in any of these kinds of areas actually does change (like Pluto not being considered a planet any more), teachers should be perfectly capable of noting the change and turning this into a teachable moment for the pupils--"This book was written at a time when Pluto was considered a planet. Now, scientists have concluded that it isn't, because [discuss a bit about why scientists changed their mind about Pluto]."

[VestalVirgin]

Oo

The Wooly Mammoth is extinct. Period

If an animal "evolves into something else" then it is not the same animal anymore.

Even if the mammoth was the ancestor of the modern elephant (which may or may not be the case, I am not a biologist), then the modern elephant could not be accurately described as mammoth.

I once met a person who didn't understand evolution and had this image of individual animals morphing into other animals in her head - if that's how evolution is taught, then that's not at all surprising.

The idea that an animal can "evolve" and then the original animal will not be there anymore is utter nonsense.

White skin and blonde hair are a mutation in humans, that "evolution" does not mean that there are no dark-skinned, dark-haired people anymore, obviously.

The wolly mammoth died out because the living conditions under which it evolved weren't there anymore, not because there is now an "improved" new version.

[Saciperere]

"This is because Britain was land-locked so animals would wander much more wildly"

Well that got my back up . Nothing to do with the fact that the UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world then!

Is this not too simple for Year 5? They are surely thinking about and learning about evolution in more depth. This looks like the kind of homework my 7 year old has, tick the box type activities for more simple and linear thought processes. No wonder it's frustrating for your son.

[multigrainhoops]

p.s. Screenshot of original version ...

[multigrainhoops]

Yeah, that's what I mean GrainOfSalt. They've changed it because of the comments - see here www.teachitprimary.co.uk/resources/y3/prehistoric-britain/life-processes-and-living-things/animals-of-stone-age-britain/23716

[GrainOfSalt]

Maybe I've missed something but the worksheet states 'Tick all the statements you believe to be true' so there are multiple right answers?? And there is nothing about 'evolution' into 'modern day' animals just 'do they remind you of?' which doesn't exclude the common ancestor issue.

[multigrainhoops]

Ooh, but I see that they've now changed the wording on the worksheet to "this animal reminds be of ..." rather than "this animal evolved from ...".

Mumsnet power in action!!!!!!

[multigrainhoops]

I grew up in the country uses text books. I wish they have them in England

Science text books go out of date too quickly. Schools can't afford to update them every time a new edition is published.

There are lots of good online resources out there - teachers just need to follow their own advice and check their sources.

It's significant that the "original" version of this worksheet had an accompanying table of information which no longer seems to be online, perhaps because it's out of date or someone pointed out that it was inaccurate. So instead the worksheet was issued with an instruction to "do research". If the teacher re-issuing the worksheet had bothered to do that research herself first, she might at least have been able to point the students to websites pitched at an appropriate level, and (hopefully) more likely she would have quickly realised the questions the sheet was asking weren't appropriate.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

I think that depends on where it is in the sequence of lessons. I don't think it's too bad towards the end of a unit for higher attaining pupils.

It could promote some interesting discussion questions.

[FV45]

In this position, if I felt I had a lot more knowledge than the teacher then I would speak to them and offer to give a special lesson on evolution, hopefully they would accept that my profession gave me a greater understanding and didn't think I was just being a mardy parent.

I have been asked to go into school to talk about my my line of work and I love it.

If this is an introduction to evolution I think it's gone in at far too complex a level.

[kesstrel]

I'll just add that the constant repetition of the phrase "and it has not evolved" in that exercise worries me, as likely to create the impression in some children that some animals didn't evolve at all, which could cause confusion.

[kesstrel]

I was once an EAL child, text books helped me a lot. Things I didn't get it at the class, I could always revise using them at home.

I had the same experience (though not EAL). Not having a textbook really penalises bright children whose classroom experiences are inadequate, either from poor teaching or from disruption.

[myownprivateidaho]

RafaIsTheKingOfClay

Yes, of course. I don't think that teachers shouldn't be questioned. But I just don't think that this particular sheet calls for the reactions in this thread. Fair enough to say to the teacher that s/he got some of the extinct animals mixed up with some related but different extinct animals. Not fair enough to say that s/he has clearly misunderstood the fundamentals of the theory of evolution and to lament the lack of education of primary school teachers in general.

[user789653241]

Hippee, you made me smile! My ds had similar in yr2, he spent hours doing it, cried in the end he can't possibly go on anymore.

I grew up in the country uses text books. I wish they have them in England.
I was once an EAL child, text books helped me a lot. Things I didn't get it at the class, I could always revise using them at home.
Now as a parents, I don't have a clue what my child is learning at school. If they have text books, at least I can keep track of things they are learning.
And also it must save teachers time to plan lessons. Good teachers can supplement and expand knowledge of children, and less confident ones at least don't end up teaching something totally wrong.

[Hippee]

Teachers don't always think things through - we had maths homework in year 4 which said "How many combinations of 50ps, 20ps and 10ps can you make to equal £2.00?" - then "How many more with 5ps, 2ps and 1ps?" - there were hundreds. It took hours and was soooooo tedious.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

Even if that was the case, myprivate, of your going down that road as a teacher, you have to be prepared to be corrected by pupils or parents.

[kesstrel]

One other thing that tends to happen in countries that do science well at primary level (Finland, Japan, Singapore) is that they tend to have centrally-mended, high-quality and properly-sequenced primary-school-level textbooks on science,

Unfortunately, 30 years of disdain from teacher educators for textbooks, on the grounds that they promote "passive" learning, has led to a system that either thinks textbooks are unimportant, or is actively hostile to them. The work of cognitive psychologists such as Dan Willingham is leading some teachers to question this, but I fear we are a long way from any serious change to this attitude.

[myownprivateidaho]

Honestly, I find this thread slightly worrying. It feels great to sneer about primary school teachers not understanding evolution etc. But most posters don't seem to have thought critically about the problem with this worksheet.

The problem with the worksheet is not that it incorrectly explains the theory of evolution. The problem is that it gets the name of some of the ancestors wrong. The ancestor of a modern elephant is something called a primelephantis and not a woolly mammoth. The woolly mammoth is better described as a cousin of the modern elephant.

However, what the sheet does CORRECTLY is demonstrate that over time, natural selection causes adaptations which over the generations give rise to new species.

Personally, I don't think it's unreasonable that the sheet used more familiar extinct animals in order to get kids to remember this theory even though this meant sacrificing strict accuracy. I think that using the example of the woolly mammoth probably led to more kids being engaged and remembering the outline of the theory than using an unfamiliar extinct animal would have done.

However, even if you don't think this, all that the sheet has done is mistake the ancestor and not misstate the basic theory of evolution.

If you're going to sneer at "uneducated" primary teachers, best to get your own head around the materials they are using first.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

As a primary science specialist, I think it does matter. There's a difference between simplifying an explanation that can be built on later and teaching something that's so incorrect that it has to be untaught.

What's equally worrying is that's a commercially available resource. How many other teachers have bought that and are using it without question?

[MostlyHet]

Well, aa someone with a PhD in theoretical physics, I'd sooner have someone withluckiest'sattitude thanuser's teach my children.

What actually matters is how the teacher approaches mistakes/gaps in their knowledge (honestly or with bluster) and also the parents attitude (do you go in all guns blazing or do you tactfully explain why a particular error/oversimplification matters? Because oversimplifications are almost unavoidable in trying to teachsscience to people who haven't got a huge amount of background knowledge - the question is whether the oversimplification ends up dangerously misleading.)

And if you do have specialist knowledge, how about volunteering to go in and help? I borrowed our STEM outreach stuff from work and spent an afternoon with DC's class and had a fantastic time. I know other parents have done the same - a midwife for eg when they were doing the "where do babies come from?" topic).

[Believeitornot]

user, how's your history? Or geography? Having s degree in science does not make you a better teacher or more knowledgable.

[VashtaNerada]

user - you may have a good science knowledge but you presumably don't have the equivalent knowledge in every single subject you teach?! As a parent with a primary aged child I actually appreciate luckiest's honesty! You can't possibly know everything and I think it's fine if occasionally a child or parent knows more and is able to feed that back.

[Booboostwo]

Nobody said teachers should learn everything from their students because they know nothing. It's about instilling a questioning attitude, which accepts the possibility of ignorance and failure in everyone and imparts research skills that lead to life long learning.

[MaryTheCanary]

One other thing that tends to happen in countries that do science well at primary level (Finland, Japan, Singapore) is that they tend to have centrally-mended, high-quality and properly-sequenced primary-school-level textbooks on science, and schools make ample use of them. This makes it easier for teachers who are not science specialists to teach science in a way that does not actively introduce misunderstandings, not least because they do not end up having to spend hours on end trying to create and assemble their own resources (often from Googled information which may be of dubious quality). It also reduces workload for teachers.