Primary Science Worries

[Sunscorch]

I've been browsing through a few old threads on these boards, and I came across something a little worrying. To me, at least.

This happened in an ancient thread, by internet standards, which is why I've not revived the original post. Someone was talking about correcting a teacher's spelling, and how to go about it sensitively. One poster brought up a tangentially related point about correcting a teacher's science knowledge in class. They seemed horrified by the attitude, although I believe correcting an egregious error such as the one they mentioned must be done immediately, lest misconceptions take root.

My question is this:
Can you, as a teacher or parent, explain how the cause of seasons on Earth?
And, as an adult in a classroom, would you correct a teacher if you saw them teaching a class of thrity young minds a completely worthless misrepresentation of that?

DH's job is communicating science to pupils and teachers.
I could fill pages and pages on this topic.
But had better not!

The fact that there is a cohort of primary school teachers who were not required to have a science GCSE is something that is still being rectified.

Our kids work always got marked as correct as the teachers assumed they would know the answer. Took them rather to task about it!

CMOT, you have to be very careful how a little child is translating science facts when they 'are correcting the teacher'. I have a child in my class who is well versed in atomic theories, states of matter and the molecular structure of the major food groups. However, he is so confused about it all, he very rarely gets the facts right, although he is VERY confident about it. Luckily, I have a science background and can usually spot the glaring errors.

So, please be a little circumspect when you boast tell us about your dc correcting the teacher.

Surely, if he gets the facts wrong all the time, he isn't well versed in it?
That seems like a contradiction to me.

"As the top of mountains are nearer the sun, which is the source of heat, how come they stay colder and snowy?"

Don't think I have seen anyone answer this one. It is because you are nearer the top of the atmosphere. Less air above you means lower air pressure. As pressure drops the temperature drops. If you want to look it up then look for lapse rates. Roughly 2*C for every 300m (1000 feet).

I think a problem occurs when the child knows more about the subject than the teacher does (more often in primary where most teachers have an arts background rather than science). I know of a few kids who have tried to question a misconception by the teacher and been not very well received :(

For instance, they are keen to jump to the idea that the tilt of the Earth brings us nearer to the sun in summer, hence its warmer. Its hard to get them to the point of understanding that it is to do with the angle the sun's rays strike the earth.

I would be surprised that this would be something other than level 5 pupils would understand at primary.

I disagree with this - you can do a simple physical demonstration with a torch and a piece of paper - you can see how the light is concentrated when it comes from over head, and increasingly spread out as you tilt the light (or the surface). You can talk about the experience of heat of sun on your face. Most kids I think could understand that demonstration and then it is a relatively small step to accept that scaled up to a very big scale explains why it is warmer at the equator than the poles, and why we have seasons.

Do they need to know how seasons come about in primary school?

Why the hell not ? The more they understand the world they live in the more they will appreciate it. They experience seasons - why shouldn't they get a basic understanding of why they occur early on ? It would help them to understand winter will end, summer doesn't last for ever etc.

I've got a follow up question on my mountain! With apologies for more diversion - here is a prarphrase of latest exchanges with KS2 age DCs on this: I didn't know how to respond. Anyone?

"Space isn't hot as the effect of the sun's radiation is felt only when it encounters something. The earth's atmosphere is therefore heated, including the air within it; and the distance beyond that isn't therefore relevant. What is the depth of the atmosphere (6miles??) a mountain is say 2 miles - that's a big difference within the heated atmosphere, and hot air rises".

hot air does rise - but as it rises it cools because the pressure drops and it stops rising roughly when it reaches the temeprature of the surrounding atmosphere. Lapse rates geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/lapserate.htm -lots more - that is just the first one I came up with !

I think space is cold because it has virtually no air (or anything else) - so nothing to hold any heat.

Hi:

As many on MN will know I'm a BBC Learning [BETA] fan! Worth every penny of my tv license.

You can find information & a fantastic 5 minute video which is beautifully presented about why the earth's formation & the actual tilt of the earth affects the seasonal solar radiation hitting the earth & thus we have seasons.

Now this is allegedly lessons for 11 - 14 year old but my 7 and 9 year old adore BANG GOES THE SCIENCE and although some things may need support/ explaining - in general the video makes it very visual and understandable for KS2 children I feel.

Link here: www.bbc.co.uk/schools/teachers/bang/series_3_4/videos/lesson5_earths_formation_gives_seasons.shtml

Supporting materials & video on this webpage.

There's a lovely experiment using a ball and a torch to demonstrate how the sun's light is more concetrated when the tilt of the earth is closer to the sun (summer position).

I disagree with this - you can do a simple physical demonstration with a torch and a piece of paper - you can see how the light is concentrated when it comes from over head, and increasingly spread out as you tilt the light (or the surface). You can talk about the experience of heat of sun on your face. Most kids I think could understand that demonstration and then it is a relatively small step to accept that scaled up to a very big scale explains why it is warmer at the equator than the poles, and why we have seasons.

Yes, this is the fairly bog standard way of teaching it (certainly at secondary school in my experience over the past 20 years) . I'm not sure what your point is though.

In my dd's story book (one she got from school) it said that plants get their food from the soil. I was so annoyed and I really had to stop myself from writing a comment in my dd's communication book.

I find the misconception that plants make their food from sunlight just as irritating!!

Sorry MigratingCoconuts:

Not sure what you're disagreeing with - because the paper experiment you referred to

you can do a simple physical demonstration with a torch and a piece of paper - you can see how the light is concentrated when it comes from over head, and increasingly spread out as you tilt the light (or the surface).

Is very close to the experiment that is described on the BBC website - the difference is that it is played out over a sphere (replicating the earth) other than that same idea.

Agree describing heat on your face or observations about areas of the world (as we have a very diverse community at our school) are observations that KS1 children can make - so they can observe that's the case. I was trying to give information about explaining why that's the case.

Agree growing plant experiment in KS1 was a disaster. Mostly because my poor DD2 lovingly grew her bean plant and recorded it's height over 3 weeks in her 'plant diary' then proudly carried it into school for the official measuring day. A week later a dead plant was sent home to her. I asked what happened to your bean? She burst in to tears and said the teacher wouldn't let her water it.

Although she understand the mechanics of how to grow a plant - I'm slightly more concerned that the school just ticked that box (get children to grow plant) and didn't see the process through to flowering and fruiting (or in this case bean production). Why not have the kids eat something made with the beans they grew? Very uninspiring.

Nice little basic info site on where plants get food - which covers the full range of things plants need to make food: www.mbgnet.net/bioplants/food.html. My DD2 was taught they get all their food from water - so yes I'm with you on frustration there MigratingCoconuts. Had a devil of a time stopping DD2 from overwatering as a result ever since as well.

pest, the bit I put in bold was a direct lift from throckenholt's post of 7.35 today. I didn't understand his point so I am not surprised you don't understand mine

sorry...throckenholt could just as easily be female as male!!

I was a she last time I looker .

My point was science is not too difficult for primary kids to understand. You can take very simple demonstrations and build up understanding from experience of the world around them.

I was reply to the bit I quoted just above (only level 5 calibre would be able to understand it).

And to address another bugbear of mine. Much of this can be done practically without recourse to being able to read and so does not need to exclude those children who are slow to take of with reading.

As with everything true understanding come with exposure to ideas from lots of different angles. The earlier you start the more layers or understanding you build up. Being able to tie together simple physical experience (eg torch and paper) to the bigger world around you is a crucial first step.

My kids in a mixed year 1/2 class did a similar exercise with a volunteer. They played with torches, paper, and a globe. Talked about seasons, difference between equator and poles, and a bit about eclipse and lunar cycle. They all thoroughly enjoyed it. They all got something out of it. They may not all of understood the physics behind it but it was something that sparkled their imagination and is still remembered year later, something to build on. My personal observation is that it is remembered by most of them because it was unusual. Not the normal modus operandi of KS1. The teachers also enjoyed it because it was new to them too (and that is the problem !).

that would be looked in normal parlance

I also work in science communication so I'm always researching and communicating these things. What I find is the more you know about this kind of thing, the more complicated it is. How the seasons work is actually quite hard to explain and grasp. Another example is tides and the Moon - easily explained on a very basic level, but the reality is actually much more complicated and I'd be willing to bet most adults don't really understand it.

So, while I despair at the very small amount of science teaching at primary level, which I think is daft (kids love experiments and explanations and could easily be doing a lot more science in P1-P3 for example), I would be fairly tolerant about oversimplified science.

Re the seasons, the reason for the change in temperature and sunlight is the change in the angle of the sun's rays, because of the Earth's tilt. But, if you are in the northern or southern hemisphere, your location does "lean" nearer to the sun in summer - if you just look at the tilt of the Earth, in relation to the Earth's centre, the UK (for example) is (insignificantly) closer to the sun in summer. Actually, in the Northern hemisphere, the Earth as a whole is closest to the Sun in winter (because of the elliptical orbit) and furthest away in summer so this isn't at all relevant - but you can absolutely see why even a bright primary school child would take that away from the classic diagram.

In short, there is a lot going on and I would understand a primary school teacher letting some of the details slide, as long as they were getting the basic concept across. (However I would prefer it is they themselves understood it properly and could give any extra-interested children the full story.)

Completely erroneous misconceptions presented as fact is a bit different though - I would delicately point them out I think.

What I find is the more you know about this kind of thing, the more complicated it is. How the seasons work is actually quite hard to explain and grasp. Another example is tides and the Moon - easily explained on a very basic level, but the reality is actually much more complicated and I'd be willing to bet most adults don't really understand it.

That is true for most science - the more you look at it the more complicated it gets. But it is no reason not to at least get the bigger picture early on.

For the seasons the key thing to get is the tilt of the earth's axis is crucial. If it wasn't tilted you would have permanent very hot equator and very cold dark poles. Because it is tilted, together with the orbit around the sun over a year, you get spreading out of the sun's influence that varies in a regular explainable pattern throughout the year. Because the tilt, when your hemisphere is pointing more directly at the sun the heat is more concentrated, and you get the sun for longer each day - summer, and the opposite occurs in winter.

Lucky for us because without it much of the earth would not be very easy to live in.

I also did about the days being longer or shorter with dd. She seemed facinated by all day sun or all day night at the poles.
She is year 4 level 3 in science now, and seemed to remember it pretty well from when I explained it about a year ago.

Migrating coconuts. Sorry I don't understand your point. Obviously at primary they don't need to know about
light energy/glucose/Photophosphorylation/Calvin Cycle. I would be happy with "Food" and "Sunlight" at primary and secondary teachers could build upon that. Do you not agree?

Or were you just making fun out of my grammar?

I wasn't making fun of you at all! (sorry you felt that )

I genuinely get irritated when students tell me plants make food from light. Its a secondary bug bear, I guess, because at GCSE students should understand that plants make food (glucose) from carbon dioxide and water using light energy to drive the reaction.

sorry again for the misunderstanding.

throkenholt yes, I agree, science (at some level) is easy enough for primary school kids to understand but complex science isn't, which is why it is levelled.
For a kid to understand seasons enough to be able to articulate it back to you...they are working at level 5.

I get you coconuts - the whole "plants are made from air" (oversimplifying wildly yet essentially true) thing is so basic yet so difficult to believe that it does need to be hammered home frequently.

I am so sorry. I am a bit sensitive about the subject of photosynthesis, lol. x

When I started my Geography A level the theory of Plate tectonics was an outlier subject that the teachers were very iffy about so they taught us the shrinkage theory.
When I started my degree the first thing we were told was that Plate tectonics was correct and we should ignore everything we had been taught before.

Feynman used to have to tell his students to forget everything they had learned at school.

My point is that explanations need to be appropriate to the audience and willing to change.
How things are explained at primary may not be "right" but they need to fit with a 5 year olds thought processes
and corrected later.

My point is that explanations need to be appropriate to the audience and willing to change.
How things are explained at primary may not be "right" but they need to fit with a 5 year olds thought processes
and corrected later.

This is my favourite sentence of the thread becuase it is exactly right!

It might also explain why many parents think they are seeing a misconception on the part of primary school teachers and blame it on them being from an artistic background rather than excellent practitioners of the age range they teach.