Interleaving the Science Curriculum?

Interesting tweet from @griff2742 My main thought on this is “proceed with caution”. There is certainly evidence supporting interleaving, but I’m not at all convinced that evidence supports re-designing a science curriculum in a way that breaks up topics more than we already do. However, I do think it indicates we should build in regular […]

Read More Interleaving the Science Curriculum?

My Mum & Misconceptions

My mum is an exceptional woman. An occupational therapist for most of her career, she was inspired by some voluntary bereavement counselling she did for a few years and then retrained as a psychotherapist in her 50s, completed a degree, and then a Masters, and worked very successfully with all sorts of people struggling with an extraordinary […]

Read More My Mum & Misconceptions

Designing a new SKE curriculum

I’d like to acknowledge Ben Arscott’s (2018) article in Impact, as the inspiration for the structure of this blog post, which is part of the Curriculum In Science symposium. Part one of the series is by Adam Boxer. Part two is by Ruth Walker: language of curriculum Part three is by Gethyn Jones: designing curriculum […]

Read More Designing a new SKE curriculum

MCQ – going all in

I think it was at ResearchEd Durrington, that Peps McCrea talked about making bets. If I remember correctly he was suggesting that, having digested both research and experience, there was a point at which you needed to make a bet, and go all in. If you don’t do this then you end up trying to […]

Read More MCQ – going all in