Practical Opportunities in the New A Level Specifications

In my last post I explained that changes to the way practical work is to be assessed at A Level would more likely increase the number of practicals that are carried out at A Level. To illustrate this I shall be comparing the current OCR Biology Specification with the New Biology A Specification as this is the current specification I have been following and the one I shall be doing next year. Other specifications have different requirements currently e.g. SNAB with the concept of Core Practicals and the A2 Project but I have taught both Edexcel and AQA since the 2008 changes so I have a good grasp of what is required for them as well, but if someone wants to go into a deeper analysis of those then they are welcome to.

In the current specification Practical Work is assessed through three practical exams that take place within lessons. A Quantitative, Qualitative and Evaluative Paper, the total (out of 30) is recorded and students have an opportunity to take more than one paper (but not re-sit the same paper) in order to ghee a better mark, most centres I’m aware of do two of each paper usually as one of the practicals is awkward to do in the centre due to equipment availability or it being an environmental practical that is unfeasible with the local area. The Evaluative does not require practical work to take place but it is related to the Quantitative so that means that, students will have to do 4 practicals in a year in order to complete the practical exams. As part of their preparation a Practice Practical is completed for each task this adds another 4 practicals to the year (unless the practice is a demo or a paper based explanation of the method).

Looking at the learning objectives in the current specification there are some that imply strongly that a practical should be done in order to meet them, though there is no reason why the method can’t be discussed in a purely theoretical context.

AS Practical Los:

  • outline the effect of changing temperature on membrane structure and permeability
  • describe how to carry out chemical tests to identify the presence of the following molecules: protein (biuret test), reducing and non-reducing sugars (Benedict’s test), starch (iodine solution) and lipids (emulsion test);
  • describe how the concentration of glucose in a solution may be determined using colorimetry
  • describe how the effects of pH, temperature, enzyme concentration and substrate concentration on enzyme activity can be investigated experimentally;
  • explain the importance of sampling in measuring the biodiversity of a habitat

A2 Practical LO:

  • describe how to investigate experimentally the factors that affect the rate of photosynthesis

There are of course other learning objectives such as osmosis, histology, respiration where practical work can be used to help illustrate concepts but the point I am making is that they are not explicitly identified as practicals the students have to do.

In all an A Level Biology Student might expect to take part in 22 practicals over the course of the two years, 13 in AS and 9 in A2.

Looking at the new specification there is some interesting rewording of some of learning objectives. Where currently the LO would imply that practical work would be a good thing to do; now in the new specification doing a practical is explicit.

For example in the Current Specification at AS:

1.1.2 Cell Membranes

  • recognise and explain the effects that solutions of different water potentials can have upon plant and animal cells

Now in the new specification the same LO is written like this:

2.1.5 Cell Membranes

(e)

(ii) practical investigations into the effects of solutions of different water potential on plant and animal cells.

And in the A Level the current specification has:

4.1.3: Hormones

  • describe, with the aid of diagrams and photographs, the histology of the pancreas, and outline its role as an endocrine and exocrine gland

And in the new specification:

5.1.4 Hormonal communication

(c)

  • the histology of the pancreas
  • the examination and drawing of stained sections of the pancreas to show the histology of the endocrine tissues

I have been through the new specification and identified all the possible practical opportunities that are in the AS and A Level. I have mapped these opportunities to the 12 Practical Activity Groups (PAG) that students need to show competency in. If the practical is in bold then that has been identified as a possible practical to use as an assessment exercise, if there is an asterisk next to the practical then the specification has said that this needs to be a practical (as shown above). I have also added in other possible practicals that could be done to help support learning and develop student’s skills for the assessment. For the last PAG, Research, I have tried to identify areas where research tasks could be set for the students based upon the wording of the learning objective. Some practical work can be used to provide evidence of more than one PAG.

 

PAG (Practical Activity Group) AS Level Practical Opportunities A Level Practical Opportunities
1. Microscopy
  • Structure of cells
  • Using a graticule*
  • Prokaryote & Eukaryote Cells
  • Stages of mitosis
  • Stages of meiosis
  • Cell specialisation
  • Structures in the human lung
  • Gas exchange surfaces*
  • Xylem and Phloem*
  • Blood smears*
  • Liver histology*
  • Nephron histology*
  • Pancreas histology*
  • Skeletal muscle*
2. Dissection
  • Bony fish gill and/or insect trachea*
  • Structure of arteries, veins & capillaries
  • Mammalian heart structure*
  • Plant stem dissection*
  • Kidney structure
  • Cloning plant tissues*
3. Sampling Techniques
  • Random & non-random sampling in the field*
  • Abundance & distribution of organisms in the ecosystem (Biodiversity)
4. Rates of enzyme controlled reaction
  • Enzyme reactions (substrate concentration)*
  • Co-factors & coenzymes
  • Enzyme inhibition
  • Rate of photosynthesis*
  • Yeast respiration (aerobic & anaerobic)*
  • Rate of respiration (factors)*
  • Enzyme immobilisation
5. Colorimeter or Potometer
  • Quantitative food tests*
  • Transpiration rates*
  • Membrane permeability (beetroot)
6.Chromatography or Electrophoresis
  • Analysis of biological molecules (amino acids)
  • TLC of photosynthetic pigments*
  • Electrophoresis
7. Microbiological Techniques
  • Batch & continuous fermentation
  • Growth of microorganisms (effect of antibiotics)*
8. Transport in and out of cells
  • Membrane permeability*
  • Rate of diffusion*
  • Effect of water potential on plant and animal cells*
  • Osmosis in potatoes
9. Qualitative Testing
  • Biological molecules tests:
    • Biuret test for proteins*
    • Benedict’s test for reducing and non-reducing sugars*
    • Reagent test strips for reducing sugars*
    • Iodine test for starch*
    • Emulsion test for lipids*
  • Purification of DNA by precipitation*
  • Urine analysis
10. Investigation using data logger or computer modelling
  • Structure & function of globular proteins
  • Structure of nucleotides
  • Lung volumes*
  • Heart rate (ECG)
  • Heart rate (nervous & hormonal control)
  • Muscle contraction
  • Rate of photosynthesis*
  • Yeast respiration (aerobic & anaerobic)*
  • Rate of respiration*
  • Gene sequencing to predict amino acid sequence
11.   Investigation into the measurement of plant or animal responses
  • Transpiration rates*
  • Physiological response of endotherms and ectotherms
  • Phototropism and geotropism*
  • Effect of plant hormones*
  • Reflex actions
  • Control of heart rate (effect of exercise on heart rate)
  • Muscle contraction*
  • Rate of photosynthesis*
  • Yeast respiration (aerobic & anaerobic)*
  • Rate of respiration*
12. Research skills
  • The potential uses of stem cells in research and medicine*
  • Sources of medicines
  • Vaccination
  • Benefits & Risks of antibiotic use
  • In situ and Ex situ conservation projects
  • Classification systems
  • Darwin & Wallace’s role in theory of evolution

 

 

 

  • Kidney failure
  • Effect of drugs on synapses
  • Potential treatments for diabetes
  • Different respiratory substrates and RQ
  • Ethics of artificial selection
  • Gene sequencing
  • Ethics of genetic engineering
  • Potential uses of gene therapy
  • Cloning
  • Uses of immobilised enzymes
  • Management of ecosystems for sustainability
  • Management of environmental resources and the effects of human activities
  • Investigation into the respiration rate of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

By my count there are now 37 (23 AS, 14 at A Level) practical opportunities that have to take place as they are either part of the specification or can be used as a PAG assessment practical. This list of practical opportunities needs to be mapped onto any scheme of work so that enough lesson time is given to ensure that the students get enough opportunities in the course to be able to demonstrate that they have mastered the skill.

The one aspect of practical work that is overlooked in this is any sort of long form investigation. This at the moment is a key feature of the Salter’s A Levels and will be missed by many who deliver that course. For those centres who feel hard done by because of this then I would suggest looking at the EQP or Crest Awards as an addition to the subject where students will be able to conduct a more long term piece of practical investigation.

Posted in A Level, Biology, Experiments, Teaching, Thoughts | Leave a comment

OCR are #positiveaboutpractical

On Friday 6th February 2015, OCR launched the arrangements for the practical endorsement which will form part of the new science A Level specifications that will be taught from September 2015. The decision to separate the assessment of practical work from the final grade and have an endorsement on the student’s certificate of either pass or fail has been a controversial one. Many institutions (The Wellcome Trust, SCORE, The ASE, BERG) have come out against this decision and over. In the past week there have been quite a few news stories about this from Nicky Morgan asking Qfqual to  revert this decision, The Wellcome Trust expressing their displeasure (again), a response from Ofqual and a letter from Nobel Laureate (and President of the Royal Society) Sir Paul Nurse. What has been interesting that within the classroom this decision has been welcomed by many of the teachers that I know.

Personally I am glad that the practical assessment has gone as the system is set up to be gamed and cheated so easily and the focus on a small number practicals for the assessment means that students practical experience in A Level is limited to only what is required to pass the assessment.

The OCR Launch event was not a CPD session but was more like a press conference, focussing on communicating to the assembled important people (and us teachers) what the new arrangements for assessing practical work will look like as well as justifying the decision. The following is my summary of what I took from the event.

What is the point of science education?

After the initial hellos there was a talk from Tim Oates (Group Director of Assessment Research and Development at Cambridge Assessment) who was giving a précis of his talk at the ASE Conference in 2014 Radical solutions in demanding times: alternative approaches for appropriate placing of ‘coursework components’ in GCSE examinations. When discussing the role of practical work in science, the purpose of science education needs to be established. Is the purpose of science education to produce little scientists or is it about producing knowledgeable students who could move on to be scientists? I have always thought that the first role of science education is to give students enough of a scientific understanding so that they can survive in the adult world (Science for Citizenship) and its secondary purpose is to prepare students who wish to work in the world of science (Science for Scientists). As most students will not end up as scientists then the role of practical work must reflect that.

What is the role of practical work in science education?

What was interesting for me was this was the first event I’ve attended where the idea that practical work isn’t as good as it is was openly expressed. While the quote “Science without practical, is like swimming without water” was shown there was a greater admission that students find practical work boring, an easy lesson and isn’t great at getting the students to learn science but it is good at getting them to develop their practical skills and can help reinforce their learning by contextualising the knowledge taught in lessons. The epitome of this for me was Tim Oates saying “School practical work is not science”, while there is some level of investigation that can be done, school science is not the long, laborious and usually dull process of real science. School science cannot emulate that therefore we shouldn’t. The practicals that are done at A Level should therefore be about teaching the students the skills and competencies that they may need in their next step be it higher education or the workplace. The work of Robin Millar, Jonathan Osbourne and Ian Abrahams was used to illustrate the realities of practical work by Steve Jones of Cleapss though he did show a way of using practical work to delveir content by using water dousing to teach about the double blind method. While his quick demo of how to run a lesson was great I couldn’t help but think that this was a classic case of an expert showing me a great practical lesson but one that only taught one thing. In the realities of the classroom I do not have that short of time to spend to teach one learning objective. I also found it odd that after using dousing to promote the scientific method the Chinese Proverb “Tell me, I’ll forget. Show me, I’ll remember. Involve me, I’ll understand” was used as the final argument for using practical work, for me that proverb has as much rigour as the learning pyramid.

DAPS & IAPS

If teachers are going to be assessing the practical work of the students throughout the course rather than at specific points then the way that is done needs to be examined. This is where direct and indirect assessment of practical skills (DAPS and IAPS) come into play. For many of these practicals direct assessment of the students ability is needed in the lesson e.g. can they set up the equipment and use the equipment safely, they can take accurate readings, and using the student write ups after the lesson is over will not necessarily provide teachers with the most accurate information of if they have met the criteria. Right now most of the students practical assessment is by the IAPS process, we are seeing what they understand about how the practical works and not if they can actually do the practical. It seems that in order to provide evidence that the student has developed competency in their practical skills the DIAPS approach will be needed, this will probably lead to the requirement to do more practical work as in a large class will one teacher be able to effectively assess every student’s ability to do the practical?

For more on this see: Ian Abrahams, Michael J. Reiss & Rachael M. Sharpe (2013) The assessment of practical work in school science, Studies in Science Education, 49:2, 209-251, DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2013.858496

12 Practicals or 12 Competencies?

After the removal of the practical component from the final exam (but not really, see later) the next thing that was complained about was the ideas that there are only 12 practicals that the students have to do over the two years. For many that was too few and while I know that some schools do less than that there are some that do deliver excellent practical sessions for their students. It seems to think about them as 12 practicals is incorrect, there are 12 practical skills that the students need to demonstrate competency in. The more I thought about this, the more I realised that there is no way that 12 practicals will enough for a student to show the level of competency in the practical skills in order to get a pass. This really does goes against the reports that the decoupling of the practical work from the final grade will reduce the number of practicals that students do. In order for a student to pass they need to show that they have a mastery of the skill that is being assessed. For example, one of the skills in Biology is using a microscope. There is no way that in the first microscope practical you do with your students that they will all produce work that is good enough to be considered competent (unless they have done a lot of microscopy before, which lets face it is unlikely) so many opportunities throughout the two years will be needed in order for the teacher to confidently say that the student is good enough. This confirms what I thought when this all started, that more practical work will have to be done at A Level and not less. Those schools that are telling us that they already so loads of practical work will be in the better position of offering the new A Levels and ensuring that students can get the pass. Because students need to maintain a record of the practical work they do this is where the  Lab Book comes into play.

Lab Books

The idea of using a lab book for students to write up their practical work has been around for a while and in industry lab books are routinely used in paper and electronic format so scientists can keep a record of what procedures have been done. Students will need to keep their own record of all the practical work that they do over the course of the A Level and a lab book shouldn’t be thought of as a portfolio full of perfect practical write ups, but should be more like an art sketch book where students can compile their work, stains and all, to build up their evidence that they are becoming competent in the 12 skill areas. This lab book will become a key document in awarding the student the pass mark as well as provide them with a valuable resource for revising for the exams as 15% of the marks in the exams will come from questions about practical work. This 15% is only a little less than the value of coursework in science A Levels at the moment so as long as the questions are worded in a way that means that students will have had to have completed practical work in order to answer them then this means that practical work will form part of the student’s final grade. With the specifications increasing the % of the AO2 style of questions (being able to apply their knowledge to new situations) this means that students can be asked about any practical work not just what they could have done in lessons, further showing the importance for allowing the students to have a varied and throughout practical work experience in lessons.

In order for teachers to monitor what students have done, a spreadsheet has been produced by OCR. Here teachers can keep track of what practical work has been done, mapping the individual practicals to all the skill requirements by monitoring student attendance for the practical lessons and then ticking if they are competent in the skill. This spreadsheet will ensure that teachers have placed enough practicals into their schemes of work to meet all of the requirements as well as see which students are doing well and which need to develop. The spreadsheet has been designed with teacher workload in mind so that all they have to do is deselect the students that were absent and have not met the competency so hopefully reduce the number of clicks that a teacher has to perform on the spreadsheet. There is also space on the spreadsheet for teachers to add in their own practicals that they do so those can also be mapped to the skills so that all practical work can be evidenced as working towards competency.

Monitoring not Moderation

What will be done to check that schools are correctly implementing the practical work? Rather than the concept of moderation, monitoring visits will be set up to check that schools are following the process correctly. The difference between monitoring and moderation was made very clear, monitoring will be a formative assessment approach, with the monitor checking that practicals are integrated into the schemes of work, that student lab books are being completed and maybe watching a practical lesson take place to see how schools are delivering the practical work. Monitors will be providing advice and support so that all schools can get it done correctly. Who the people doing this monitoring will be still needs to be sorted out. Personally I think schools should work together in clusters with real teachers visiting different institutions that way advice can be a two way process. I could show a school what’s done at my place and I could take good ideas back to my department to develop our delivery. Whether this will happen or if senior management will allow the time off timetable is another thing.

In Conclusion

I think that any school that thinks they will be able to get away with just doing 12 practicals in order to get the students the pass will find that it is not possible, as students will need opportunities to practice and develop before they can show that they have mastery of the skills. I also think that the idea of “Practice Practicals” and “Assessed Practicals” should not be an avenue to go down. Every practical that is done is a potential assessment opportunity as well as a skill development one.

This new way of assessing practical work will free up teachers to deliver practical lessons in a much better way. We can integrate practical work throughout the year rather than having to crowbar it in to the part of the specification that the current practical assessment is on. Students will have the time to develop their skills and show real progression rather than the do or die card of a practical exam and use the work they do to help reinforce the learning in non-practical lessons. Schools that have said from the beginning of these changes that they do loads of practical work will have little to worry about. They can still do loads of practical work and use it to get the best out of their students. It is the schools that only do the bare minimum that will have to up their game as there are very few students who you can say they’ve mastered a skill after the first attempt.

There are of course some issues to be dealt with, such as making sure students that we are inheriting from the current GCSE system who will be used to practical assessment in the old way and so may not have the basic skills to begin with. It is also essential that the questions that are in the exam are worded in a way that students have to have done the practical in order to answer them and so reinforce their importance. The idea that the removal of practical work from the final grade will reduce the importance of it is incorrect. It has give practical work its correct place in the qualification as a supporting set of skills that are needed at times to do the subject but are not part of the knowledge required to understand science.

The two main arguments of those who disagree with these new changes are that practical work will reduce in A Level lessons and that practical work will become devalued by the students as it is not in the exam. Both of these are incorrect as reading through the OCR Biology Specification I can see more practical work than there is currently (see my next blog post) and there will be at least 15% of marks in the exams about practical work as well as the students having a record of their developing skills and a clear endorsement on their certificate saying if they are any good or not. For those who wanted to go back to a proper practical exam situation, I’d like to remind them of this.

Look at my red badge!

Look at my red badge!

 

Posted in A Level, Experiments, Teaching, Thoughts | 1 Comment

Some Problems With “Action Research”

 

I haven’t been as much on the twittersphere as of late, I find myself more of a lurker than a contributor. Not sure if I have much to say or if a can really justify the time that can be spent on it when I could be being better at all the other parts of my life that I should be doing better at. Anyway, this morning in the time I have to check twitter between my alarm going off at 5.50am and when I can drink my coffee at 6.15am I noticed this tweet:

As someone who likes technology and feels like there could be a use for it in the classroom at times, I had a look at the blog post which outlined a “study” that a teacher had completed looking at the difference between using the keypad on the IPad screen and using a traditional keyboard. The post isn’t long and you can read it here http://www.educate1to1.org/ipad-vs-pc-typing-speeds-students/ before continuing to read this if you want.

His conclusion from the data is that he “feel[s] able to suggest that young people type faster on a virtual keyboard than a traditional one.” this is based on “the average WPM (words per minute) on a PC keyboard was 32.8, and on an iPad, was 38. This is a significant difference.”

I don’t know much about the research into the difference between typing speeds on tablets and keyboards. I seem to remember a study that suggested that students typed faster with less errors with a traditional keyboard but I can’t seem to find any reference to it. If anyone can find any peer reviewed research to help then please let me know.

The part that got me thinking about this “study” was the author’s use of significant difference which is a statistical term meaning that there is a measurable difference between the two data sets as I describe it to my students the idea of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in trials using a p value of 0.05 we are 95% certain that the data shows a difference rather than the numbers appearing by chance. The use of the word significant got me to reading the post again and I have the following issues with this study. This is based upon my study of education research in particular a unit of research methods in education.

1. Methods vs Methodology

The author has based their protocol on a previous study by another teacher and states this in the post “I followed a very similar methodology”. This use of the word methodology is where I have an issue. There is a difference between a study’s method and its methodology. I see a lot of people use the word methodology to describe the procedure that is used to generate the results, however that is not the case. The procedure that is followed is the method, the methodology is your justification for using that procedure. Methodology would be a separate section in a piece of research where using a book like Research Methods in Education by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/cohen7e/) you can exaplain why you chose that method and not other methods. A small niggle perhaps, but if teachers wish to bridge the research – practice gap then the correct terminology must be used.

2. Ethics

I am unsure as to when this “study” was carried out with the students and was its purpose properly communicated to them. If measuring typing speed was a part of the course the students were studying, then I can see a reason for doing this in lesson time. However if it was an add on I am not sure if the time taken from the education of these students should have been for something like this. Were the students given an opportunity not to take part in the “study”? Were parents aware of their children’s participation in the “study”? It is possible that my worries about this could be for nothing, but it’s worrying that there is no mention of ethics in the post.

3. The Typing Test

There are two issues I have with the test that was used to measure words per minute. Firstly the test involves typing out as many words as you can in a minute that are displayed on the screen. These words are seemingly in a random order which makes me wonder if it is truly a good measure of how fast a person can type. When typing in the real world we use words that are ordered into sentences and that might mean that the typer has an idea of what the next word is while they are writing the previous word, so that way the typing may flow a lot easier than just typing one random work after an another. This error is however repeated for all the test so is a systematic error affecting all the results rather than just one, so if there is a disadvantage to the typing then it is always there.

Secondly, once you have finished the test (have a go right now if you are interested http://typing-speed-test.aoeu.eu/) the result that is given to you is a correct WPM score after removing the errors that you made. It is a shame that the author did not include this data in their analysis as it is possible that for one student, they may have got a similar WMP score but one was a lot more accurate than the other. If we wish to look at how good a keyboard is for typing then the speed and accuracy of the typing must be examined.

4. Does Typing Speed Matter?

The reason for completing this “study” is to show that using tablets is just as good as laptops/netbooks for typing. This seems to be along promoting the 1 to 1 agenda that many people seem to advocate. It seems that the speed and accuracy of typing is used by detractors as a reason for not going down the tablet path. But why is typing speed so important? Do we really need students to be able to type as quickly as possible in lessons? Is the purpose of tablet devices for writing long enough text where typing speed might matter? I thought the appeal of tablets were the apps that allow all the creativity to happen with the easy access to the internet as well as a camera and sound recording device. Do we really want students also writing essays on them? If so, then a writing speed test over a minute is hardly a good measure for that. Examining the effects over a  longer time period would be of more use as finger positioning and posture become issues with joint strain and muscle tiredness.

5. Statistical Significance

In the original post that inspired this one (http://www.bradycline.com/2013/in/ipad-typing/) the author carried out a student’s t-test on their results to see if there was a significant difference between the two sets of data. This is a good choice of test when comparing the means of two data sets. The author of the piece I’m looking at has done no such analysis. This is strange considering they state that This is a significant difference.” when comparing their two data sets. Unfortunately they do not publish their raw data to carry out a t-test, only the averages. However a chi-squared test can be done with this data to see if the results (what has been observed) differs significantly from the average of the two results (what was expected). This is not the best statistical test to use but it was what I could do on the back of a gas bill on the train with the data I had.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the speed of typing on a computer vs an IPad

Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the speed of typing on a computer vs an IPad

Step 1: Calculate the Expected WPM, the mean of the two results for each year group

Computer IPad Average
Yr7 24.4 30.8 27.6
Yr8 32.7 38.2 35.5
Yr9 30.5 38.4 34.5
Yr10 42.2 43.5 42.9

Step 2: Calculate a Chi-Squared Value

O E (O-E)2/E
24.4 27.6 0.371014
32.7 35.5 0.220845
30.5 34.5 0.463768
42.2 42.9 0.011422
30.8 27.6 0.371014
38.2 35.5 0.205352
38.4 34.5 0.44087
43.5 42.9 0.008392
Sum 2.092677

Step 3: Critical Value

There are 7 degrees of freedom, so at p=0.05 the critical value is 14.07 (http://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/chisquar.html)

The Chi-squared value is 2.09 which is well below the critical value so we must accept the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between typing speed on a computer and an IPad.

This goes against what the author has stated in their post as the results of their test.

The data as far as I can see it shows that students can type no faster on an iPad than on a traditional keyboard. It certainly doesn’t say anything to do with accuracy as the author suggests. The reason why students might pick an iPad over a laptop is more likely to do with the halo effect (cool factor) of the device and the apps rather than any idea that you can type better on it.

It is possible that these issues can be resolved by the author and I’m happy to be told that I am wrong.

But as I see it, this “study” is not great and should not be considered as reliable evidence. At best it is a pilot study for a formal piece of research. But I have doubts about what the research question is and whether a better one can be formulated. It has all the hallmarks of the “research projects” that I saw completed in my PGCE year the proved that Learning Styles worked.

 

Train Maths

Train Maths

 

Posted in Teaching, Thoughts | 7 Comments

12 Days

On the twelfth day of Christmas my college gave to me:

12 ProMonitor Comments

11 AS Skiving

10 Teachers Absent

9 Lollipops in the corridor

8 BTecs failing

7 (hundred) Moodle courses

6 Assignments outstanding

5 NQTs

4 Computers working

3 Final contracts

2 Security guards

and a 1 in Leadership & Management

Merry Christmas Greetings and all that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mitosis & Meiosis Pictures

Meiosis 1 Meiosis 2Mitosis 1 Mitosis 2 Mitosis Card 1 Mitosis Card 2 Mitosis Card 3 Mitosis Card 4 Mitosis Card 5 Mitosis Card 6 Mitosis Card 7 Mitosis Card 8 Mitosis Card 9 Mitosis Card 10 Mitosis Card 11 Mitosis Card 12 Mitosis Card 13Mitosis Card 14

Mitosis Cards (pdf)

Mitosis Pictures (pdf)

Meiosis Pictures (pdf)

Posted in Biology, Teaching | 1 Comment

Electron Micrograph Print Set

1: Animal Cells – liver

2: Animal Cells – Intestinal Epithelium

3: Animal Cells – Salivary Gland

4: Animal Cells – Muscle

5: Animal Cells – Nerve

6: Animal Cells – Mitochondrion

7: Plant Cells – Root Tip Parenchyma

8: Plant Cells – Vascular Cambium

9: Plant Cells – Xylem Ray Cells

10: Plant Cells – Nucleus

11: Plant Cells – Dividing Nucleus

12: Plant Cells – Chloroplast

1 Animal Cells Liver 2 Animal Cells Intestinal Epithelium3 Animal Cells Salivary Gland 4 Animal Cells Muscle 5 Animal Cells Nerve 6 Animal Cells Mitochondrion 7 Plant Cells Root Tip Parenchyma 8 Plant Cells Vascular Cambium 9 Plant Cells Xylem Ray Cells 10 Plant Cells Nucleus 11 Plant Cells Dividing Nucleus 12 Plant Cells Chloroplast

Electron Micrograph Print Set Instructions (pdf)

Electron Micrograph Print Set (all pictures in a pdf)

 

Posted in ASE Chat, Biology, Teaching | Leave a comment

A Level Chemistry Comparisons

Direct from @TeacherChemist here is a comparison of the new A Level Chemistry Specifications

It is available as a google doc here:

Chem Spec Comparision

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment