Turn on thread page Beta

The advantages of teaching science through drama. watch

Announcements

    Why combine drama and science?

    Apart from tackling two areas of the curriculum in one lesson there are many ways in which science
    and drama work well together, two of which are by developing children's creativity and
    communication skills.

    · Creativity - drama encourages children's imagination and allows them to explore areas that they
    would otherwise not be able to experience. · Communication – drama is all about communication, the
    communication of ideas from the actor to the audience.

    For more infomation please visit www.littleoctopus.com.

    Chris Scanlan wrote:

    [q1]> Why combine drama and science?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Apart from tackling two areas of the curriculum in one lesson there are many ways in which science[/q1]
    [q1]> and drama work well together, two of which are by developing children's creativity and[/q1]
    [q1]> communication skills.[/q1]

    I never considered science to be a creative subject. Much of the curriculum is learning
    factual material.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> · Creativity - drama encourages children's imagination and allows them to explore areas that they[/q1]
    [q1]> would otherwise not be able to experience.[/q1]

    Like blowing up the chemistry lab by haphazard mixing of chemicals.

    [q1]> · Communication - drama is all about communication, the communication of ideas from the actor to[/q1]
    [q1]> the audience.[/q1]

    Scientists need to have good communication skills if they are to present their work and discoveries
    to an audience. I have long been pressing that schools teach kids how to make an effective
    presentation on a factual theme, whether it be a political campaign, a public speech or explaining
    scientific and technical facts to an audience of lay people.

    Sadly in todays liberal PC curriculum such concepts seem to have been thrown out of the window just
    like technical writing has been axed from the GCSE English course. In recent years students studying
    engineering courses at universities find it difficult to write their thesis or the outcome of an
    experiment. Many universities now have a compulsory module on technical writing and presentation.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> For more infomation please visit www.littleoctopus.com.[/q1]

    On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:19:29 +0100, The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]>I never considered science to be a creative subject.[/q1]

    Do you not feel that a great many advances in science have been down to a creative leap - the
    syntheseis of new knowledge out of old? Weren't Newton and Einstein thinking 'outside the box' when
    they came up with their ideas?

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Scientists need to have good communication skills if they are to present their work and discoveries[/q1]
    [q1]>to an audience. I have long been pressing that schools teach kids how to make an effective[/q1]
    [q1]>presentation on a factual theme, whether it be a political campaign, a public speech or explaining[/q1]
    [q1]>scientific and technical facts to an audience of lay people.[/q1]

    Odd - with one of the main thrusts of the National Curriculum, QCA documents and the Literacy hour
    being the idea of writing for an audience.

    As for science - one of the skills specifically mentioned even in KS1
    is:

    "communicate what happened in a variety of ways, including using ICT [for example, in speech and
    writing, by drawings, tables, block graphs and pictograms] "

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Sadly in todays liberal PC curriculum[/q1]

    I think you need to un-pack that a little. Not sure how the idea of political correctness impacts on
    technical writing. As far as liberal goes - well, I guess it depends on teh sense you are using, but
    there are few aspects of education in the UK ATM that could be called liberal.

    Toodle pip

    Marshal

    Marshal Anderson wrote:

    [q1]> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:19:29 +0100, The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >I never considered science to be a creative subject.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Do you not feel that a great many advances in science have been down to a creative leap - the[/q1]
    [q1]> syntheseis of new knowledge out of old? Weren't Newton and Einstein thinking 'outside the box'[/q1]
    [q1]> when they came up with their ideas?[/q1]

    You are absolutely spot on. Scientific discoveries are normally found by operating outside the box.
    Sadly in recent years anything that runs counter to established theory is seen as heritical as when
    Galileo confirmed that the earth orbited the sun. An example of this heresy is cold fusion. I myself
    believe that cold fusion is for real and that it is a nuclear process as opposed to a chemical one
    which disbelievers claim it is.

    As for school science lessons, traditionally they have been (in both Britain and most other
    countries) about learning factual material although in many instances alternative hypotheses and
    ways of conducting an experiment crop up. Strategic thinking and exploring alternatives should be
    paramount.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Scientists need to have good communication skills if they are to present their work and[/q2]
    [q2]> >discoveries to an audience. I have long been pressing that schools teach kids how to make an[/q2]
    [q2]> >effective presentation on a factual theme, whether it be a political campaign, a public speech or[/q2]
    [q2]> >explaining scientific and technical facts to an audience of lay people.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Odd - with one of the main thrusts of the National Curriculum, QCA documents and the Literacy hour[/q1]
    [q1]> being the idea of writing for an audience.[/q1]

    The national curriculum has been disbanded.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> As for science - one of the skills specifically mentioned even in KS1[/q1]
    [q1]> is:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> "communicate what happened in a variety of ways, including using ICT [for example, in speech and[/q1]
    [q1]> writing, by drawings, tables, block graphs and pictograms] "[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Sadly in todays liberal PC curriculum[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I think you need to un-pack that a little. Not sure how the idea of political correctness impacts[/q1]
    [q1]> on technical writing.[/q1]

    Its place in the curriculum has been demoted somewhat. The English course seems to be more aimed at
    things like poetry rather than technical writing. University lecturers in engineering departments
    know this very well.

    [q1]> As far as liberal goes - well, I guess it depends on teh sense you are using, but there are few[/q1]
    [q1]> aspects of education in the UK ATM that could be called liberal.[/q1]

    Really. Over the past 20 years the secondary school curriculum has been dumbed down, trivialised and
    stripped out. Science and maths really has bore the brunt of this trivialisation. Just compare an O
    level textbook from the 1980s with a GCSE one from today.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Toodle pip[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Marshal[/q1]

    On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:09:05 +0100, The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]>Marshal Anderson wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:19:29 +0100, The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>> >I never considered science to be a creative subject.[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>> Do you not feel that a great many advances in science have been down to a creative leap - the[/q2]
    [q2]>> syntheseis of new knowledge out of old? Weren't Newton and Einstein thinking 'outside the box'[/q2]
    [q2]>> when they came up with their ideas?[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>You are absolutely spot on. Scientific discoveries are normally found by operating outside the box.[/q1]
    [q1]>Sadly in recent years anything that runs counter to established theory is seen as heritical as when[/q1]
    [q1]>Galileo confirmed that the earth orbited the sun. An example of this heresy is cold fusion. I[/q1]
    [q1]>myself believe that cold fusion is for real and that it is a nuclear process as opposed to a[/q1]
    [q1]>chemical one which disbelievers claim it is.[/q1]

    Ok - that's cleared that one up then

    [q1]>As for school science lessons, traditionally they have been (in both Britain and most other[/q1]
    [q1]>countries) about learning factual material although in many instances alternative hypotheses and[/q1]
    [q1]>ways of conducting an experiment crop up. Strategic thinking and exploring alternatives should be[/q1]
    [q1]>paramount.[/q1]

    Agreed - the curriculum generally has mittigated against creativity in many ways, depite NC 2000's
    many words on the subject. The concentration in testing that encourages largely convergent thinking,
    making it difficult to encourage divergent thinking as part of normal school activity. That said,
    there's a lot of examples where that's going on and where OFSTED have praised it.

    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>> >[/q2]
    [q2]>> >Scientists need to have good communication skills if they are to present their work and[/q2]
    [q2]>> >discoveries to an audience. I have long been pressing that schools teach kids how to make an[/q2]
    [q2]>> >effective presentation on a factual theme, whether it be a political campaign, a public speech[/q2]
    [q2]>> >or explaining scientific and technical facts to an audience of lay people.[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>> Odd - with one of the main thrusts of the National Curriculum, QCA documents and the Literacy[/q2]
    [q2]>> hour being the idea of writing for an audience.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>The national curriculum has been disbanded.[/q1]

    Errr, I think I missed this - seriously. It still seems to be alive and kicking at
    http://www.nc.uk.net/home.html

    I am making the assumtion you are talking about the UK - sorry if that's wrong.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]>> As far as liberal goes - well, I guess it depends on teh sense you are using, but there are few[/q2]
    [q2]>> aspects of education in the UK ATM that could be called liberal.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Really. Over the past 20 years the secondary school curriculum has been dumbed down, trivialised[/q1]
    [q1]>and stripped out. Science and maths really has bore the brunt of this trivialisation. Just compare[/q1]
    [q1]>an O level textbook from the 1980s with a GCSE one from today.[/q1]

    OK (and that doesn't mean I agree - but I think that's another argument. It's not liberal from
    the POV of the 'liberal' education which concentrates on the 'arts', nor is it liberal in the sense
    that it is 'not ridgid'. The dumbing down argument will run and run :-/

    Marshal

    The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]>Marshal Anderson wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:19:29 +0100, The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>> >I never considered science to be a creative subject.[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>> Do you not feel that a great many advances in science have been down to a creative leap - the[/q2]
    [q2]>> syntheseis of new knowledge out of old? Weren't Newton and Einstein thinking 'outside the box'[/q2]
    [q2]>> when they came up with their ideas?[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>You are absolutely spot on. Scientific discoveries are normally found by operating outside the box.[/q1]

    [q1]>Sadly in recent years anything that runs counter to established theory is seen as heritical as when[/q1]
    [q1]>Galileo confirmed that the earth orbited the sun.[/q1]

    In the long run, that doesn't really matter. Conservativism in science is a good thing - new
    assertions that are contrary to established theories *should* be considered sceptically.

    [q1]> An example of this heresy is cold fusion. I myself believe that cold fusion is for real and that[/q1]
    [q1]> it is a nuclear process as opposed to a chemical one which disbelievers claim it is.[/q1]

    The imaginative element in science is very important - the scientific process involves dreaming up
    new hypotheses, and then testing them experimentally. There was very strong reaction to the cold
    fusion claims - but the detractors would have changed their tune PDQ if the results had been
    replicated - which they were not.

    Gareth

    Marshal Anderson wrote:

    [q1]> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:09:05 +0100, The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >Marshal Anderson wrote:[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:19:29 +0100, The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:[/q2]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >> >I never considered science to be a creative subject.[/q2]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >> Do you not feel that a great many advances in science have been down to a creative leap - the[/q2]
    [q2]> >> syntheseis of new knowledge out of old? Weren't Newton and Einstein thinking 'outside the box'[/q2]
    [q2]> >> when they came up with their ideas?[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >You are absolutely spot on. Scientific discoveries are normally found by operating outside the[/q2]
    [q2]> >box. Sadly in recent years anything that runs counter to established theory is seen as heritical[/q2]
    [q2]> >as when Galileo confirmed that the earth orbited the sun. An example of this heresy is cold[/q2]
    [q2]> >fusion. I myself believe that cold fusion is for real and that it is a nuclear process as opposed[/q2]
    [q2]> >to a chemical one which disbelievers claim it is.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Ok - that's cleared that one up then [/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >As for school science lessons, traditionally they have been (in both Britain and most other[/q2]
    [q2]> >countries) about learning factual material although in many instances alternative hypotheses and[/q2]
    [q2]> >ways of conducting an experiment crop up. Strategic thinking and exploring alternatives should be[/q2]
    [q2]> >paramount.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Agreed - the curriculum generally has mittigated against creativity in many ways, depite NC 2000's[/q1]
    [q1]> many words on the subject. The concentration in testing that encourages largely convergent[/q1]
    [q1]> thinking, making it difficult to encourage divergent thinking as part of normal school activity.[/q1]
    [q1]> That said, there's a lot of examples where that's going on and where OFSTED have praised it.[/q1]

    Most of the present school curriculum doesn't encourage kids to think. It makes them either learn
    hard facts by rote or dream things up of dubious value.

    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >> >Scientists need to have good communication skills if they are to present their work and[/q2]
    [q2]> >> >discoveries to an audience. I have long been pressing that schools teach kids how to make an[/q2]
    [q2]> >> >effective presentation on a factual theme, whether it be a political campaign, a public speech[/q2]
    [q2]> >> >or explaining scientific and technical facts to an audience of lay people.[/q2]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >> Odd - with one of the main thrusts of the National Curriculum, QCA documents and the Literacy[/q2]
    [q2]> >> hour being the idea of writing for an audience.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >The national curriculum has been disbanded.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Errr, I think I missed this - seriously. It still seems to be alive and kicking at[/q1]
    [q1]> http://www.nc.uk.net/home.html[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I am making the assumtion you are talking about the UK - sorry if that's wrong.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]

    I am talking about the UK. I read somewhere that officially the national curriculum has been
    disbanded and that its imposition is no longer mandatory.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >> As far as liberal goes - well, I guess it depends on teh sense you are using, but there are few[/q2]
    [q2]> >> aspects of education in the UK ATM that could be called liberal.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Really. Over the past 20 years the secondary school curriculum has been dumbed down, trivialised[/q2]
    [q2]> >and stripped out. Science and maths really has bore the brunt of this trivialisation. Just[/q2]
    [q2]> >compare an O level textbook from the 1980s with a GCSE one from today.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> OK (and that doesn't mean I agree - but I think that's another argument. It's not liberal from[/q1]
    [q1]> the POV of the 'liberal' education which concentrates on the 'arts', nor is it liberal in the[/q1]
    [q1]> sense that it is 'not ridgid'. The dumbing down argument will run and run :-/[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Marshal[/q1]

    The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected] ive.co.uk>...
    [q1]> Marshal Anderson wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:09:05 +0100, The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q3]> > >Marshal Anderson wrote:[/q3]
    [q3]> > >[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:19:29 +0100, The Technical Manager <[email protected]> wrote:[/q3]
    [q3]> > >>[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> >I never considered science to be a creative subject.[/q3]
    [q3]> > >>[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> Do you not feel that a great many advances in science have been down to a creative leap - the[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> syntheseis of new knowledge out of old? Weren't Newton and Einstein thinking 'outside the[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> box' when they came up with their ideas?[/q3]
    [q3]> > >[/q3]
    [q3]> > >You are absolutely spot on. Scientific discoveries are normally found by operating outside the[/q3]
    [q3]> > >box. Sadly in recent years anything that runs counter to established theory is seen as[/q3]
    [q3]> > >heritical as when Galileo confirmed that the earth orbited the sun. An example of this heresy[/q3]
    [q3]> > >is cold fusion. I myself believe that cold fusion is for real and that it is a nuclear process[/q3]
    [q3]> > >as opposed to a chemical one which disbelievers claim it is.[/q3]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> > Ok - that's cleared that one up then [/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q3]> > >As for school science lessons, traditionally they have been (in both Britain and most other[/q3]
    [q3]> > >countries) about learning factual material although in many instances alternative hypotheses[/q3]
    [q3]> > >and ways of conducting an experiment crop up. Strategic thinking and exploring alternatives[/q3]
    [q3]> > >should be paramount.[/q3]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> > Agreed - the curriculum generally has mittigated against creativity in many ways, depite NC[/q2]
    [q2]> > 2000's many words on the subject. The concentration in testing that encourages largely[/q2]
    [q2]> > convergent thinking, making it difficult to encourage divergent thinking as part of normal[/q2]
    [q2]> > school activity. That said, there's a lot of examples where that's going on and where OFSTED[/q2]
    [q2]> > have praised it.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Most of the present school curriculum doesn't encourage kids to think. It makes them either learn[/q1]
    [q1]> hard facts by rote or dream things up of dubious value.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q3]> > >>[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> >[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> >Scientists need to have good communication skills if they are to present their work and[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> >discoveries to an audience. I have long been pressing that schools teach kids how to make an[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> >effective presentation on a factual theme, whether it be a political campaign, a public[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> >speech or explaining scientific and technical facts to an audience of lay people.[/q3]
    [q3]> > >>[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> Odd - with one of the main thrusts of the National Curriculum, QCA documents and the Literacy[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> hour being the idea of writing for an audience.[/q3]
    [q3]> > >[/q3]
    When I was teaching in a primary school we used drama in a science lesson. There was a part in the
    play where the actors had to explain to the audience how plants take up nutrients through their
    roots. I was going to ask the children to draw the process on a board but they wanted to become the
    roots, nutrients etc and act it out! They designed and made their own costumes, wrote the lines and
    performed them. They were very proud of their achievments and have never forgotten the lesson!

    When I studied science at school I was put off by the fact that the science had already been
    discovered and we were only repeating old experiements. What I like about drama is it forces
    people to create things new. I am trying hard to bring that freshness into science lessons and
    have had several interesting conversations with the QCA about how to bring creativity into the
    classroom in general.

    all the best

    Chris

    [q3]> > >The national curriculum has been disbanded.[/q3]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> > Errr, I think I missed this - seriously. It still seems to be alive and kicking at[/q2]
    [q2]> > http://www.nc.uk.net/home.html[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> > I am making the assumtion you are talking about the UK - sorry if that's wrong.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I am talking about the UK. I read somewhere that officially the national curriculum has been[/q1]
    [q1]> disbanded and that its imposition is no longer mandatory.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q3]> > >[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> As far as liberal goes - well, I guess it depends on teh sense you are using, but there are[/q3]
    [q3]> > >> few aspects of education in the UK ATM that could be called liberal.[/q3]
    [q3]> > >[/q3]
    [q3]> > >Really. Over the past 20 years the secondary school curriculum has been dumbed down,[/q3]
    [q3]> > >trivialised and stripped out. Science and maths really has bore the brunt of this[/q3]
    [q3]> > >trivialisation. Just compare an O level textbook from the 1980s with a GCSE one from today.[/q3]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> > OK (and that doesn't mean I agree - but I think that's another argument. It's not liberal[/q2]
    [q2]> > from the POV of the 'liberal' education which concentrates on the 'arts', nor is it liberal in[/q2]
    [q2]> > the sense that it is 'not ridgid'. The dumbing down argument will run and run :-/[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> > Marshal[/q2]
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.