# data[].attributes.body
Students should be able to examine some of the current hazards and benefits of space exploration and discuss the future role and implications of space exploration in society.

# data[].attributes.body
Nature of Science:

Nos1, Nos8, Nos9, Nos10

Justification for these outcomes is evident in links to other strands document.

Other Science Strands:

ES1, PW 2

# data[].attributes.body
Fun Fact: Neil Armstrong, was the first human to set foot on the Moon, Apollo 11

# data[].attributes.body
This video is a brief snapshot of Neil Armstrong as he lands on the moon in 1969.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Historic Moment Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin Set Foot on the Moon

# data[].attributes.body
Students will complete this investigation on how being in space affects bone loss and mass, students will utilise bags of cereals as the bone mass:

# data[].attributes.body
Video outlines the impacts space has on the body

Question for students to answer after watching of the video:

List two implications of space travel on an astronauts body.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Exactly Does Space Travel Do To Your Body?

# data[].attributes.headline
United States flag on the Moon following the Moon landing:

# data[].attributes.subject
United States flag on the Moon following the Moon landing:

# data[].attributes.body
Fact: The aspiration to travel and explore space was known as the "Race to the Moon", this was lead by both Russia and the United States as both countries wanted to be the first country to land astronauts on the Moon.

# data[].attributes.headline
Links to other Learning Outcomes document:

# data[].attributes.subject
Links to other Learning Outcomes document:

# data[].attributes.headline
Links to Key Skills and important principles:

# data[].attributes.subject
Links to Key Skills and important principles:

# data[].attributes.body
This scientific paper delves into the benefits space exploration has given us such as the creation of employment, developing and creating relations between countries and expansion of knowledge and development of research programs. This ultimately enhances students appreciation for space science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Benefits to society from space exploration and use

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many obvious benefits to society from the exploration and use of outer space have been reported. The conviction that such benefits exist is what motiv...

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the benefits of space exploration?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the benefits of space exploration?

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to letting students complete the investigation on effects space has on bone density, students will refer back to the lab rules for safety and adhere to them on completion of the investigation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Video resource 1: Hazards of Humans in Space 

# data[].attributes.subject
Video resource 1: Hazards of Humans in Space 

# data[].attributes.body
This video outlines the potential hazards that can occur during space expeditions along with the negative impacts space travel can have on astronauts bodies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hazards of Human Spaceflight | Hazard 2: Isolation & Confinement

# data[].attributes.body
Research an assigned space exploration event and create a presentation - Further explained in PowerPoint.

# data[].attributes.body
Questions to answer are included in the PowerPoint.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Life Inside The International Space Station

# data[].attributes.headline
What effects does Space Travel have on the body?

# data[].attributes.subject
What effects does Space Travel have on the body?

# data[].attributes.body
A brief video discussing the various space explorations triumphs and failures that have have occurred over the past few decades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Space Travel - Educational Video for Kids

# data[].attributes.body
This reading comprehension is based on space exploration and the role of women in space science which is an activity students can complete to generate awareness of women's role in space discovery.

# data[].attributes.body
An engaging activity students can take home, or complete if they have completed other class activities in advance of other students. It enhances knowledge in regards to Space Travel and astronauts.

# data[].attributes.body
This paper reviews the benefits of the inclusion of group work can have. It also discusses the theoretical analysis of group work from educational philosophers such as Dewey and Piaget.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Group work has been promoted in many countries as a key component of elementary science. However, little guidance is given as to how group work should be organised, and because previous research has seldom been conducted in authentic classrooms, its message is merely indicative. A study is reported, which attempts to address these limitations. Twenty-four classes of 10-12-year-old pupils engaged in programmes of teaching on evaporation and condensation, and force and motion. Both programmes were delivered by classroom teachers, and made extensive use of group work. Pupil understanding progressed from pre-tests prior to the programmes to post-tests afterwards, and results suggest that group work played a critical role. Organisational principles are extrapolated from the findings, which could be readily adopted in classrooms.

Over the past twenty years, group work between pupils has been promoted in many countries as a key component of elementary science. The relevance of group work to science education is a recurring theme in contemporary guides for practitioners (e.g. Harlen and Qualter, 2004, Sherman, 1999, Ward et al., 2005). It is emphasised throughout a recent issue of the professional journal Primary Science Review, which addresses 'questions and dialogue' (Association for Science Education, 2004). Within the United Kingdom, it has even reached the level of national policy. A crucial version of the science curriculum for England and Wales (Department of Education and Science, 1989) stipulates that 'pupils should describe and communicate their observations, ideally through talking in groups' (p. 3). Environmental Studies: Science (Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2000), which guides teaching in Scotland across the first nine years of schooling, also recommends group work, stating that it is 'particularly suitable for encouraging pupils to talk about and share ideas' (p. 20).

Yet seldom, in either the practitioner publications or the policy documents, is detailed guidance given about how science group work should be organised. At best, suggestions are made about the broad types of activity that are amenable to group work, e.g. practical investigation (Sherman, 1999). However, the use of group work for practical investigation is already well established in elementary science (Lemke, 1990). Since current group work practices (including for science) have been criticised for being undemanding (Baines et al., 2003, Bennett et al., 1984, Galton et al., 1999, Galton et al., 1980), advocacy of practical work seems unlikely to be sufficient. Advice for elementary science that goes beyond broad activity would appear to be needed. The over-arching aim of the research to be reported here is to contribute to such advice, via the specification of relatively fine-grained principles for designing effective group work.

Theoretical analyses of classroom group work can usually be traced back to Dewey's (e.g. Dewey, 1916) contention that pupils should be encouraged to operate as members of communities, actively pursuing interests in cooperation with others. For instance, inspired by Dewey, Piaget (1932) saw cooperation as providing the social context where pupils would be motivated to coordinate existing ideas with alternatives. Such coordination was, for Piaget, the precondition for development. Piaget's emphasis upon cooperation as a means to coordination led him also to predict that group work between pupils should prove more productive than interaction with adults. Ideas proposed by adults would, according to Piaget, most likely dominate those held by pupils rather than be coordinated with them. Subsequently, researchers in the 'cooperative learning' tradition (e.g. Johnson and Johnson, 1992, Slavin, 1995) have revisited Dewey's emphasis upon the joint pursuit of interests. While accepting the need for exchange of ideas as highlighted by Piaget, they focus upon the opportunities provided by group work for pooling resources towards individual (but interdependent) goals.

Whatever their differences, the background theories all highlight interaction between pupils in contexts of mutuality and equality, and this emphasis has provided the framework for much subsequent research. In general, results have concurred with the framework, while fleshing it out. For instance, research has covered structural features like group size and seating arrangements. Consistent with the framework, it recommends groups of no more than four or five pupils (e.g. Baines et al., 2003, Lou et al., 1996), and equal opportunities for eye contact (e.g. Jaques, 2000). A second strand in previous research relates to the role of teachers, looking in particular at desirable forms of intervention and optimal principles of task design. The basic message is that intervention should stress monitoring and guidance rather than control (e.g. Blatchford et al., 2006, Cohen et al., 1989), and tasks should be designed to be open-ended, challenging and inherently cooperative (e.g. Cohen, 1994, Slavin, 1995). Again, this concurs with the background framework.

Research has also addressed productive forms of pupil interaction, with work conducted in a range of contexts. Studies have addressed mathematics (Damon and Phelps, 1989, Webb, 1989), the humanities (Miell and MacDonald, 2000, Morgan et al., 2000), and the social sciences (Shachar & Sharan, 1994). Of particular relevance here, they have also covered elementary concepts in science, e.g. biological transmission (Williams and Binnie, 2002, Williams and Tolmie, 2000), heat transfer (Howe et al., 1995, Howe and Tolmie, 2003), object flotation (Howe et al., 1990, Howe et al., 2005), propelled motion (Hennessy et al., 1995, Howe et al., 1992) and shadow formation (Forman and Carr, 1992, Howe et al., 2000). Regardless of context, optimal interaction seems to involve pupils proposing ideas and explaining their reasoning to their peers, perhaps after disagreement. This of course is highly consistent with the Piagetian emphasis upon the exchange of ideas. Going beyond Piaget (although not incompatible with his approach), it also appears helpful, but not essential, for pupils to refer back to earlier task material, or when the task is challenging, to achieve group consensus over crucial points.

Given the extent of previous research, it might appear that specifying principles for effective group work in elementary science is simply a matter of disseminating what is already known. However, this is not the case. In the first place, the work on structural features and the role of teachers has, with very few exceptions (see Sherman, 1999), focused upon disciplines other than science. Yet science classrooms have characteristics, for instance extensive use of equipment, which mean that principles established elsewhere will not necessarily apply. As regards the third area covered above, i.e. pupil interaction, research has, as noted, included elementary science. However, again with a small number of exceptions (e.g. Barnes and Todd, 1977, Herrenkohl et al., 1999), it has not been classroom-based. It has usually followed an experimental methodology, and although this has resulted in large samples of pupils, controlled assessments of impact, and evidence of sustainable benefits, it has also involved short-term (often one-off) interventions, researcher- rather than teacher-delivery, artificially constructed groups, and unfamiliar settings. The dangers of extrapolating from experimental findings have been highlighted by Crook, 2000, Engestrom, 2004 and Kumpulainen, Kangassalo and Vasama (2005), who warn in particular about insensitivity to local conditions and/or contextualised meanings. There is, as a consequence, a need to check that principles of effective group work suggested in experimental contexts have relevance in standard classrooms. The research that follows was intended to address this need.

The research to follow builds on SPRinG KS2 (Social Pedagogic Research into Group Work Key Stage Two), a recent project (Blatchford et al., 2003, Blatchford et al., 2006) that, in contrast to work reviewed so far: (a) did take place in authentic classrooms, (b) was concerned with elementary science, and (c) did cover structural features, teacher role, and pupil interaction. SPRinG KS2 was conducted in the South of England with fourth-, fifth- and sixth-year pupils, Key Stage Two covering the second half of what, in the United Kingdom, is called 'primary' schooling. It was a multi-faceted project, but crucial for present purposes are the following. First, SPRinG KS2 started with activities for developing generic group skills. These activities began with a continuing professional development session, where teachers were introduced to desired structural features and teacher roles (following literature guidance as summarised above). Subsequently, teachers took their classes through group-based exercises designed to promote skills such as listening, questioning, helping, giving explanations and reaching agreement. The exercises were described in resource packs that the researchers provided, and were introduced during the continuing professional development session. Second, subsequent to skills training, the pupils went through two programmes of science teaching, one addressing evaporation and condensation, and the other addressing force and motion. Each programme covered key concepts, and required pupils to design investigations. For instance, the force and motion programme covered the angle, smoothness and height of slopes, and the weight and streamlining of cars as influences on motion, and introduced the concepts of gravity, friction and air resistance.

Although the SPRinG KS2 science programmes employed whole-class discussion and teacher demonstration, they made extensive use of group work. The group tasks incorporated features shown in earlier experimental studies (primarily Howe and Tolmie, 2003, Howe et al., 1995, Howe et al., 2000, Tolmie et al., 1993) to maximise the chances of pupils proposing ideas, disagreeing, explaining their reasoning, referring back and reaching consensus. In other words, the tasks were designed to support the forms of pupil interaction that the studies (as well as other work reviewed above) had found to be beneficial. The programmes were implemented by teachers using researcher-supplied resources (which had themselves been developed in consultation with teachers), and in each case involved two to three hours of teaching spread over several weeks. Pupil understanding of evaporation and condensation and force and motion was tested before and after the programmes, and progress significantly exceeded that made by control pupils who received teaching in the two topic areas, but did not participate in the group skills training or the SPRinG science programmes.

The SPRinG KS2 project is an important step towards clarifying how group work should be organised in elementary science, yet uncertainties remain. First, there is no guarantee, from the patterns of pre- to post-test change alone, that the group work component of the science programmes, and in particular interaction of the form highlighted by past research, was a critical factor in promoting growth. The benefits may have resulted from other aspects of the programmes, e.g. the whole-class discussions or teacher demonstrations. They may also have stemmed from the group skills training, and not the science programmes. It is possible, for instance, that the training boosted pupil motivation and interest, guaranteeing a positive response to science teaching no matter how it was presented. Observational data were collected while the programmes were being implemented, and these data may clarify which aspects were beneficial. Nevertheless, designed for different purposes, the observational categories do not correspond precisely with notions like proposing, disagreeing, explaining, referring back and reaching consensus, and therefore results may not be conclusive.

Second, even if the group work component was important, there is no guarantee that the benefits will generalise across classroom contexts. As noted earlier, the background theories emphasise equality and mutuality, implying that group work should involve pupils of roughly equal status. Supporting this is evidence that group members are most likely to share ideas and explain reasoning when status is similar (Kruger and Tomasello, 1986, Mugny and Doise, 1978). With asymmetries, higher status pupils will often dominate (Bachmann and Grossen, 2004, Ellis and Rogoff, 1982, Miller and Brownell, 1975). SPRinG's science programmes focused on single-age classes, and age is an important (although not unique) predictor of pupil status (Rogoff, 1990). Some schools in the United Kingdom deploy mixed-age composite classes, as do schools elsewhere in Europe and North America. Composites (often with very wide age ranges) are the norm in developing countries. Given indications that the single-age vs. composite variable has relevance for learning outcomes (Rohrbeck, Ginsburgh-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003), questions must be raised about the viability of the SPRinG group tasks in both contexts.

In view of the above, the research that is reported here deployed materials modelled on the SPRinG KS2 science programmes to address two questions. The first question was whether use of the materials is associated with knowledge gains in composite as well as single-age classes. The research was conducted in Scotland, where the reasons for composite classes differ between rural and urban schools. In rural schools, composites often occur because the numbers of pupils in any given age band are below those needed to comply with guidelines on teacher-pupil ratios. In urban schools, they usually occur when the numbers are too high, and compliance can only be achieved via single-age classes at each of two age levels plus mixed-age composites. In any event, the smaller staff complement in rural schools may mean greater variation between schools in teachers who are confident and able to tackle science. Acknowledging such issues, the research counter-balanced the single-age vs. composite contrast, with a rural vs. urban contrast.

The second question addressed in the research was whether knowledge gains after the science programmes are dependent upon group work that displays the structural features, teacher contribution and pupil interaction that studies discussed earlier suggest may be beneficial. Structural features and teacher contribution were examined using rating scales, while pupil interaction was explored using rating scales together with classroom observations that looked directly at proposing, disagreeing, explaining, referring back and reaching consensus. To allow the contribution of group work to be pinpointed as precisely as possible, observations were made during teaching sessions that were mainly group-based and during sessions that emphasised whole-class activities directed by the teacher. To double-check that the group-based and whole-class sessions contrasted as expected, records were also made of the social context in which pupils were located, e.g. working alone, with the teacher, or in a group.

Christie, D., Tolmie, A., Howe, C., Topping, K., Thurston, A., Livingston, K., Jessiman, E., & Donaldson, C. (2005)....

Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups

Motivation and the ecology of collaborative learning

Department of Education and Science
Science in the national curriculum

Engestrom, Y. (2004). Towards a methodology of formative experiments: an activity-theoretical perspective on the study...

Forman, E.A., & Carr, N. (1992). Using peer collaboration to foster scientific thinking: what determines success? Paper...

General Register Office for Scotland
2001 Census results

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Group work in elementary science: Towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Group work has been promoted in many countries as a key component of elementary science. However, little guidance is given as to how group work should...

# data[].attributes.body
Reflection

# data[].attributes.body
Would you travel to Space?

# data[].attributes.body
This is the PowerPoint to be utilised for the double - 80 minute class on Space Exploration breaking down and discussing the learning outcome.

It includes all resources such as the video and instructions for group work.