Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Science' started by Apple101, Jul 7, 2016.
The true aristocracy of the world. Bow down to our undersea masters.
I teach atomic structure, total nonsense I agree, so glad you posted this, I thought it was me being too highbrow or not really understanding the model anyway, other teachers seem happy to teach it, guess I need to embrace it and throw myself into the details again
This week my wife and I attended a reading workshop at our grand daughter's primary school (she is yr 4). Working alongside her we were taken through a series of exercises and activities to show us how we can assist her at home when she reads to us. These were very good and useful. The last exercise was about extracting key facts from text. The text began ' Invertebrates are a species of animal that do not have a backbone'. Now given that one of the earlier exercises had been using a dictionary to find out the specific meaning of words I pointed out to the teacher running the show the error in stating that invertebrates were a species and that the word species has a very specific meaning in science. I tried to explain that in secondary science we often have difficulty unteaching wrong concepts taught in primary. I don't think he believed me.
They have a copper based oxygen transport system, not iron.
year 9 and today I experienced it teaching yer 10 genetics too, so many students simply don't believe me about xx chromosomes in a female and xy in a male, and that these cannot be changed. They just plain don't believe me
Anything I tell my Y7s that they didn't already 'know', they just ignore. I am wasting my breath on them.
Probably because they have been told for so long that men and woman are the same?
Actual contents may vary.
How do you tell the sex of a chromosome?
Take off its genes!
Eh? Fast moving particles are no less dense than others. They already have increased thermal energy (which is why they are described as 'hot'.)
The particles making up a liquid are further apart than those in a solid.
Hot air balloons. The particles are moving faster because of the thermal energy being supplied so they spread out more and that portion of the air is less dense.
that all science in the curriculum is possible to conclude by 'working scientifically'! lol the distinction between knowledge, knowable using the scientific method and conceptual / belief system theories is becoming more and more blurred as time goes on. Great thread to read through
Theres an Indonesian lizard that has green blood as it has high levels of biliverdin in its blood. Biliverdin is what makes our eyes appear yellow with jaundice but the lizard thrives on it. Its transports oxygen through haemoglobin though just the additional yellow makes the blood green. Then theres an Antarctic icefish that has colourless blood. The fish has evolved to be scaleless and as extremely cold Polar water holds a lot more oxygen than warmer water so the fish can absorb it through its skin and transport it with its very large heart.
Just been reading this interesting thread. Surely the above is technically correct; there is nobody called Newton (or indeed anything else) on the moon.
Nor were there any teachers in that classroom.
Another misconception currently in the news: when a plane decompresses due to a hole in the fuselage objects can be 'sucked out' of the hole.
The concept that the sun is on fire may be reinforced by the fact that nuclear fusion of hydrogen to helium is actually referred to as "hydrogen burning".
Depends on the size and mass of the object surely, or are you just objecting to the term "sucked out"?
Never heard that and had to search... it looks like it's only astronomers that do this, all other science web pages I can find consider "hydrogen burning" to mean combustion.