From Rob.Duff at greenbayhigh.school.nz Tue Dec 2 14:12:59 2008 From: Rob.Duff at greenbayhigh.school.nz (Rob Duff) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:12:59 +1300 Subject: NZIP Conference 2009 cost indication? Message-ID: Hi- I am intending to go to the 2009 NZIP conference next year in Christchurch but cant find any information about registration costs and have not had a reply from NZIP as yet. Does anyone have any idea what the cost would be or what it was for the last conference? Any info on this would be much appreciated. Cheers- Rob Duff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.reid at canterbury.ac.nz Tue Dec 2 14:54:58 2008 From: mike.reid at canterbury.ac.nz (Mike Reid) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:54:58 +1300 Subject: NZIP Conference 2009 cost indication? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rob, Sorry for the delay. There will be a more detailed email to NZIP members soon, but the conference is at University of Canterbury, 6-8 July. Full registration will be $350. Accommodation in one of the student dormitories will be an option. Mike Reid Treasurer, NZIP -- Dr Michael F Reid Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand ________________________________ From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz [mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of Rob Duff Sent: Wednesday, 3 December 2008 11:13 a.m. To: phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz Subject: NZIP Conference 2009 cost indication? Hi- I am intending to go to the 2009 NZIP conference next year in Christchurch but cant find any information about registration costs and have not had a reply from NZIP as yet. Does anyone have any idea what the cost would be or what it was for the last conference? Any info on this would be much appreciated. Cheers- Rob Duff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From francis.Bryden at stcuthberts.school.nz Tue Dec 9 15:45:40 2008 From: francis.Bryden at stcuthberts.school.nz (Bryden, Francis) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:45:40 +1300 Subject: old books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EF144C71C215@stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local> I have 25 old (2001) y13 Howison 25 very old (1994) y13 Howison and 30 old (1995) y12 Burchill Binns Kinsler free to be picked up if anyone wants them Thanks ................ Francis Francis Bryden HoD Physics St Cuthbert's College 122 Market Rd or Box 26 020 Epsom Epsom Auckland 1051 Auckland 1344 New Zealand New Zealand ph: 64 9 5204159 ext 7808 fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz -----Original Message----- From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz [mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of Kerry Parker and Andy Price Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2008 10:36 p.m. To: Skelton, Mo; Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz Subject: Re: level 1 matrix Hi Mo, Alan etc. Looking over the a la carte menu of level 1 standards is a bit bewildering. I am wondering if it might be helpful to us if we try to think about what students need and what we can do to ensure that the range of standards on offer through NCEA can be written to meet their needs. I have taught students who are only doing physics 'because they have to' for too long now. Surely you must all have many students who work just because "I need physics to get into medicine/engineering/pilot training..." About 15 years ago I remember asking a class for hands up to show how many would prefer not to have to learn any physics if they could just have the qualification. 100% of my class wanted to remain ignorant. I still haven't got over the shock. I didn't think I was that bad a teacher! Many assessment schemes also promote a really narrow view of learning -sometimes called credit farming. This is not unique to New Zealand. It is not why I am a teacher. One of our goals from this reallignment is surely to devise an assessment system that promotes real learning and a love of life-long learning. (Or at least, it should do this better than last time!) The needs of our students are paramount - but who knows what those needs are? Do we ask our students what they want to study? How do they know? They haven't studied it yet. And, like a 15-year old's food choices, if we give them a wide variety from which to choose, how would they know what is good for them? Do we ask parents? Inevitably the parents who have the strongest voice are those who have become successful as a result of their education. Without any further information about curricula (and how many parents really have time to get acquainted with school curricula?) parents like this will very sensibly expect their kids to have an education like the one they had: proper subjects like physics, chemistry, maybe even latin, but add in some computing... I belive that as the professionals we have a responsibility to be the main advisors for our students. We devise the menu, allowing some choice but making sure that students and parents know about what is really on offer. It is not the names that matter : 'physics' or 'science', 'scientific studies'... actually I quite like the old fashioned 'natural philosophy'. Each word brings certain expectations, but the proof of the pudding, as it were, will be in what is learned by(not taught to) the students. So what physicsy stuff do we really think all school leavers should learn, and how should we best cater for the very important minority that want to continue studying physics beyond level 1? The standards are not written yet, so we haven't even begun with teaching schemes and resources. Can I put in a plea that we think beyond 'what we've always done' and think of the needs of a young adult in the 2010's? If we share our our best ideas on this, as the matrix gets tweaked and some of you people start writing standards for us, I think that we could really end up with an assessment system that promotes inspired teaching. optimistically Kerry Kerry Parker The Correspondence School ----- Original Message ----- From: "Skelton, Mo" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:13 PM Subject: RE: level 1 matrix > The new Level 1 matrix looks very well-suited to fulfilling the goals as > outlined by Alan below. And yes, I do think future students will respond > positively to some of the changes. And here I'm referring to the bulk of > the students passing through our classrooms. > > However, NCEA is meant to be about choice - not providing a prescribed > course, but one that can be put together by students and teachers to suit > needs. Where one wants to specialize at Yr 11, that pathway should be > provided - as stated on Pg 29 of the curriculum document! I still see no > need to limit choice by cutting out level 1 physics (and chem and bio). > Physics is traditionally seen as the most difficult subject - yes, let's > make it more accessible as is the aim of the new matrix - but let's not > forget the kids who relish the extra challenge and are gaining excellence > in every topic test and exam in the current achievement standards - leave > the choice there. > > Mo Skelton > StCC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan West [mailto:alanwest at xtra.co.nz] > Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 8:51 p.m. > To: Skelton, Mo > Cc: Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz > Subject: Re: level 1 matrix > > Hi everyone > > There seems to be a number of people concerned that Physics will no > longer be a level 1 subject. I don't think this should be a real > concern as I believe that at level 1, students should be encouraged > to have a broad general education. There is plenty of time to > specialise later and I think that people who later go into a > scientific career will be better off for having some arts or commerce > in their background and vice versa for those entering careers based > on the arts or commerce having some science behind them. Yes, and I > am a Physics teacher advocating this. > > However, for those who wish to specialise or run multiple science > programmes, there is huge flexibility to design courses as > illustrated in the supporting notes (Possible assessment for > different courses from L1 matrix) and these notes imply that there > could well be two exam slots for Science. > > I hope people will look at these matrices positively and not be tied > to what we have traditionally taught in the past. The world is > changing and we must look at the way we teach as well as what we > teach as we prepare our students for their futures. The matrix has > been constructed with the NOS strand built into each standard and we > are also to take into account the key competencies as we prepare our > lessons. > There are challenges for us all, but lets be imaginative and creative > and look for ways of using the new curriculum and the matrices for > improving science education for our students. > > > Alan West > HOD Science > Ashburton College > > > On 23/11/2008, at 12:01 PM, Skelton, Mo wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> The level 1 (2 and 3) matrices are out on the NZASE website and >> your feedback is asked for: http://www.nzase.org.nz/consultation.html >> I have filled in the online evaluation form but there was no >> reference to the fact that level 1 physics as a separate subject >> (ditto for chem and bio) disappears off the landscape to be >> replaced by level 1 science only. If this a concern to you then I >> guess the feedback comments form is the place to feed back - >> although not asked for. >> Is the abolishing of these level 1 subjects also up for discussion >> or have these decisions been made? The changes in aligning the >> standards to the curriculum seems rather minor in comparison. >> Action to be taken? >> >> Mo Skelton >> StCC >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Phys-teach-talk mailing list >> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz >> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz > > > _______________________________________________ > Phys-teach-talk mailing list > Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz > http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz _______________________________________________ Phys-teach-talk mailing list Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz From robcampbell at actrix.co.nz Thu Dec 11 18:49:08 2008 From: robcampbell at actrix.co.nz (Rob Campbell) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:49:08 +1300 Subject: FW: old books Message-ID: Hi Folks! Lord Lever (the soap baron) once remarked that half of his advertising was wasted, and if he knew which half, he'd stop it. There's something like that in education: you can't tell in advance what your students will need. Neither can they. Never mind. 1. The core concepts behind energy issues: global warming, insulating houses, I.C. engines, rechargeable batteries and renewable energy are - heat and thermodynamics. Do they feature in core physics / science / whatever, all the way through? 2. Are we training students to think? That includes knowing how to challenge authority - including us - in an informed way. 3. Will students need the content and skills enshrined in physics / chemistry / biology? I suggest they will. But science departments equipped to teach these (and that includes qualified teachers) are expensive. What government really means it when it says it wants to spend on education? 4. If any of you have recently-arrived Chinese students in Y 12 or 13, ask if you can see their Chinese physics textbook (there's a fair chance some will have a copy.) It's an object lesson in what NZ is not doing, and I suspect the same is true of chemistry and biology. I found I could read it fairly well from the diagrams and maths alone. There's my take on it. Rob Campbell -----Original Message----- From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz [mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of Bryden, Francis Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2008 12:46 p.m. To: Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz Subject: old books I have 25 old (2001) y13 Howison 25 very old (1994) y13 Howison and 30 old (1995) y12 Burchill Binns Kinsler free to be picked up if anyone wants them Thanks ................ Francis Francis Bryden HoD Physics St Cuthbert's College 122 Market Rd or Box 26 020 Epsom Epsom Auckland 1051 Auckland 1344 New Zealand New Zealand ph: 64 9 5204159 ext 7808 fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz -----Original Message----- From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz [mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of Kerry Parker and Andy Price Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2008 10:36 p.m. To: Skelton, Mo; Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz Subject: Re: level 1 matrix Hi Mo, Alan etc. Looking over the a la carte menu of level 1 standards is a bit bewildering. I am wondering if it might be helpful to us if we try to think about what students need and what we can do to ensure that the range of standards on offer through NCEA can be written to meet their needs. I have taught students who are only doing physics 'because they have to' for too long now. Surely you must all have many students who work just because "I need physics to get into medicine/engineering/pilot training..." About 15 years ago I remember asking a class for hands up to show how many would prefer not to have to learn any physics if they could just have the qualification. 100% of my class wanted to remain ignorant. I still haven't got over the shock. I didn't think I was that bad a teacher! Many assessment schemes also promote a really narrow view of learning -sometimes called credit farming. This is not unique to New Zealand. It is not why I am a teacher. One of our goals from this reallignment is surely to devise an assessment system that promotes real learning and a love of life-long learning. (Or at least, it should do this better than last time!) The needs of our students are paramount - but who knows what those needs are? Do we ask our students what they want to study? How do they know? They haven't studied it yet. And, like a 15-year old's food choices, if we give them a wide variety from which to choose, how would they know what is good for them? Do we ask parents? Inevitably the parents who have the strongest voice are those who have become successful as a result of their education. Without any further information about curricula (and how many parents really have time to get acquainted with school curricula?) parents like this will very sensibly expect their kids to have an education like the one they had: proper subjects like physics, chemistry, maybe even latin, but add in some computing... I believe that as the professionals we have a responsibility to be the main advisors for our students. We devise the menu, allowing some choice but making sure that students and parents know about what is really on offer. It is not the names that matter : 'physics' or 'science', 'scientific studies'... actually I quite like the old fashioned 'natural philosophy'. Each word brings certain expectations, but the proof of the pudding, as it were, will be in what is learned by(not taught to) the students. So what physicsy stuff do we really think all school leavers should learn, and how should we best cater for the very important minority that want to continue studying physics beyond level 1? The standards are not written yet, so we haven't even begun with teaching schemes and resources. Can I put in a plea that we think beyond 'what we've always done' and think of the needs of a young adult in the 2010's? If we share our our best ideas on this, as the matrix gets tweaked and some of you people start writing standards for us, I think that we could really end up with an assessment system that promotes inspired teaching. optimistically Kerry Kerry Parker The Correspondence School -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: