Pedagogical Approach Analysis

This assignment will critically analyse the teaching and learning styles used within the four week medium term plan. It will discuss what teaching and learning styles and what pedagogical choices are used to address the four misconceptions within the plan helping children to understand and develop their knowledge about electricity. The pedagogical choices used are constructivist methods looking at the use of practical activity and how the teacher gains understanding of children’s ways of learning. Another pedagogical choice within the plan is the use of whole class discussion and how this benefits the children’s learning and understanding. The final pedagogical choice is questioning, of how open and closed questions are used effectively within

the medium term plan and why the plan plans questions in advance.

A teacher who takes a constructive approach works between children’s own ideas showing they are all valued, whilst following the National Curriculum guidelines (Gatt and Vella 2003). In the medium term plan the National Curriculum guidelines are included in the Learning Objectives therefore are being met within each lesson. Linking to Piagets (1936) idea of constructivism, the plan allows children to construct and share their own knowledge and ideas before the correct concept is introduced. For example in week 1 the children are given the opportunity to order circuits using only their own knowledge before being questioned and guided towards the correct scientific way circuits work (Tytler 2006). Also this creates opportunities for children to explore their own ideas (Driver, Asoko et al 1994; Hodson and Hodson 1998) following Fensham, Gunstone and White (1994) ideas as they believe that constructivism is a way of making sense of ideas before knowing if it actually correct. Monk (1991) argues that not all children have the mental ability to begin to understand certain scientific concepts automatically and will need input from the teacher from the start. This means that in the plan children may not have the ability or confidence (Driver et at 1994; Gunstone 1990) to arrange the circuit before the teacher has given an explanation. The plan does overcome this by having it as a paired activity, which is known to help children’s confidence as they are socially sharing ideas (Staver 1998). Topin and Tippings (1993) promote a more effective level of learning is when there is a social context involved. Also there are concerns that once teachers allow children to develop their own ideas about science, without any scientific input, they will not be able to intervene or change their ideas again to the correct facts (Gatt and Vella 2003). Watts and Jofili (1998) argue that interventions can be achieved but highlight the fact that how effective this is could be the issue. From the medium term plan this could cause problems when teaching electricity as if children develop the wrong idea about, for example how a circuit works and then do not accept the teachers scientifically correct explanation after, they will have the wrong understanding stuck with them and possibly share this with other children (Watts and Jofili 1998). Ausubel (1968) states that although teachers need to allow children to express and develop their own ideas (Tytler 2006), early intervention may need to happen from the teacher so that they can teach accordingly and intervene at the correct stages (Watts and Jofili 1998). In the plan questioning is used whilst the children are developing their own ideas about how circuits work, from this the teacher can gain an idea of what children are thinking and intervene if and where needed. This avoids any further misconceptions, still allowing children to construct their own ideas (Driver, Asoko et al 1994; Hodson and Hodson 1998; Piaget 1936) but ensuring they stay on the right tracks with guidance from the teacher.

Gatt and Vella (2003) and De Boo (2004) believe that the strength of constructivism comes from applying it in practice within the classroom. The second and third week of the plan allows children to progress onto testing their ideas on actual circuits and interactive circuits on ipads independently, following Gatt and Vellas (2003) ideas, helping them think scientifically as they have already built a hypothesis about how circuits work in week one (Bannister and Fransella 1986). Following Vygotsky (1978) scaffolding theory, the plan has children working independently for these activities as they have built their confidence in week one when working with partners whilst arranging circuits. Using this method of allowing children to take part in practical activities can also benefit children’s behaviour, as they become fully engaged in the activity not allowing them to get bored preventing misbehaviour (APFSLT 2002; Salvin 1994). Other arguments suggest that practical activity is useless if children aren’t thinking and using it scientifically (Ben-Ari 2001; Resnik 1999). In the plan when the children are building circuits they are using their previous knowledge (Slavin 1994) helping them think scientifically about the parts of a circuit, giving them a deeper understanding from the practical activity (Glynn et at 1991; Wildy and Wallice 1995).

In the medium term plan each lesson includes time for controlled whole class discussion, structured to involve both teacher and individual children to speak in a group then share ideas with the class (Harlen 1985; Mercer 2008).

Allowing children time for controlled whole class discussion enables them to feel safe as it gives a stimulating open environment (De Boo 2004), helps them feel valued for their ideas when they share them (Wood 1998) also helping the teacher become respected by the children for allowing this (Alexander 2004; Pollard and Bourne 1994). Vygotsky (1986) argued that children perform at a more advanced level when working with their peers, in the plan there are multiple opportunities for children to work with other children to boost their self-confidence and develop their scientific thinking. Planning for class discussion helps teachers decide where to use it to benefit children the most (Devereux 2000; Harlen 1985). Cockburn and Handscomb (2011) agree that whole class discussion should take place at the beginning of a lesson using it to discuss what has previously been accomplished by the children and before any activities begin, but Edwards and Westgate (2005) argues that this would be irrelevant if children have no previous knowledge to discuss. In the plan whole class discussion in used at the beginning of weeks two, three and four to bring all of the children together (De Boo 2004; Harlen 1985) to discuss what they already have ideas about, also linking it to what they previously learnt in the last session (Mercer 2008). This is why in week one there isn’t a whole class discussion to start it is a whole class activity used (Turner, Keogh and Naylor 2011) to gain new interests from the children also inviting new ideas about circuits before any discussion linking to previous learning is

used.

Teacher contribution is just as important as the children’s ideas shared in whole class discussion (Harlen 1985) as the teacher holds authority and is seen as a positive role model by most of the children (De Boo 2004). Bruner’s (1986) scaffolding theory supports teacher contribution in discussion being important as teachers use discussion opportunities as a careful way to scaffold children’s ideas to keep them using correct scientific reasoning (Loxley et al 2010). In the plan the teacher does contribute to whole class discussion to guide children, to make scientific corrections to their ideas, encouraging them to contribute and assessing their ideas as they go (Harlen 1985). But Barnes et al (1986) argues that having teacher contribution in children’s class discussion neglects their own ideas as when the teacher gives contribution children start to doubt their own ideas there for resulting in them not having the confidence to share their own ideas. If the teacher wasn’t included within the discussion the children may not even be on task and they wouldn’t know, this would not be a successful part of learning in the lesson and would not have any benefit to both the teacher and children (Wood 1998) therefore any whole class discussion should be planned to include the teacher.