Category Archives: Uncategorized

Process and outcome

Leave a reply

In February Andreas Schleicher, director of education and skills at the OECD, took aim at the lack of depth of study in many schools. His view is that a “mile wide inch deep” education does not prepare young people for an uncertain future. In an effort to be responsive to the demands of the day schools keep broadening but what is added to the curriculum is only of the moment and potentially not relevant in future. The headline No point teaching coding, says Pisa chief makes clear his opinion on this particular area of study.

The article goes on to mention there is no longer a need to teach trigonometry in mathematics. This is indicative of a more general misunderstanding; Herr Schleicher has never taught in a school and is instead a statistician and researcher. It is therefore unsurprising that he has no real understanding of what happens in a classroom nor departmental meetings. The art of learning can sometimes be as important as the content that is learnt. The premise that the content itself is the sole objective of education ignores the process of learning in favour of merely the demonstrable outcome of what has been learnt. Education is all about processes rather than outcomes, yet we find ourselves in the position that statistical analysis reduces ‘success’ to the metric that can most easily be measured, e.g. examination grades. An unfortunate state of affairs that is compounded by pupils and schools being judged on the outcome rather than the process. The act of learning trigonometry is arguably more important than the understanding it brings. Just as an undergraduate degree signifies a student can read and review a variety of information under inflexible deadlines, and work – sometimes with others – to analyse a specific topic. This might even be regardless of what is being analysed. In itself this is enough to demonstrate qualities of application before the topic-specific expertise or class of degree are even considered.

However, Shleicher does at least highlight the discussion of depth v breadth. The curriculum is finite, so anything that is included has ousted some other – perhaps equally important – information. There should always be debate over what should be taught in a specific subject as well as what is learnt as a whole. Other than for hundreds of years of tradition there are many topics that are ‘outdated’ in one way or another or have ‘redundant’ content. There are also whole subjects that could be questioned! Changes at GCSE and A Level has seen a narrowing of curriculum precisely because outcomes are so highly regarded when assessing ‘success’. Shleicher might be wrong in questioning the topics being taught in the classroom, but as someone who ultimately assesses the worth of education systems his views on depth of study carry immense political influence.

 

Advertisement

Key Words in A level Biology

1 Reply

This post follows up from Keywords and fluency of understanding, a post written before the Autumn Term. It seems apt that I reflect back on the vocab books and weekly testing I have introduced with my Upper Sixth class.

Vocabulary book.PNG

How it looked in the classroom

Every student in my class was issued with a vocabulary book in September. This was specifically for the first topic, Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. The students themselves numbered it from 1 to 35 with two numbers per page. Examples from three different students should make this format clear, see below. I had decided the key words in advance (see appendix for the full list) and – as we gradually covered the topic – gave them words to put in the correct place. E.g. number 13 was the Calvin cycle. For homework students found a definition – handily enough there was a full glossary at the back of their textbook – copied it down and learned it for a vocab test at the start of the next lesson.

VB1.PNG

Student A – key words 23 to 26

VB2.PNG

Student B – key words 27 to 30

 

VB3.PNG

Student C – key words 31 to 34

Fortuitously the arrangement of other Upper Sixth Biology classes gave this intervention a quasi-experimental design that I could compare my class to the other three classes. The fact that the cohort numbers 40 and I have ten, exactly a quarter, in my class was further good luck. This would allow me to evaluate the vocab books and weekly testing for my class which I will now call the experimental group. All 30 other Biology A level students in the Upper Sixth did not use the vocab books or have regular key word testing, therefore these students will be called the control group.

What happened?

Good question (and for those who like a bit of value-added data (VAD) tomfoolery this will be a real treat!). Firstly, as a basic comparison the table below compares the mean average score for the Plant Physiology and Biochemistry end-of-topic test for the experimental and control groups:

Experimental Group 66%
Control Group 64%

Two percent! I have written before about gains as small as 1%, but is 2% a good result? Ultimately this does not tell us too much. The classes are all mixed-ability by the standards of the school, so it might seem that my intervention has had a positive effect. But students are organised into classes by option blocking of their other subjects, therefore I might have randomly been allocated students whose attainment is higher by chance.

This is where VAD might help. Our students are given ALIS scores which project future A level performance from GCSE results; see the clever people at CEM for more details. So I can now use the projected ALIS grade to compare to student performance in the end-of-topic test to calculate a residual. E.g. if a student is projected an A grade but scores a B their VAD residual is -1, if the same student gains an A* their residual is +1 and if they get their projected grade the residual is 0. The table below shows the average VAD residual for both groups:

Experimental Group -0.8
Control Group -1.2

This means the experimental group, on average, scored 0.8 of a grade lower than their projected grade. However, this was better than the control group where students scored, on average, 1.2 grades lower.

Does this mean anything? Well, let us muddy the waters a little by considering that the experimental group has a second teacher (an excellent person and very knowledgeable biologist) who takes them for half of their allocated teaching time. How do the experimental group’s scores compare in the topic they did with me, using vocab books and regular testing, to the topic they did with Teacher 2? The information is tabulated below:

Topic

 Mean average score Average VAD residual

Plant Phys. and Biochem.

66%

-0.8

Genetics

 65%

-1.1

We are still looking at very fine margins but it certainly seems that they have attained better grades, in terms of VAD, for the topic they used vocab books and regular key word testing. However, (and as all good biologists know) correlation does not mean causation. There are a huge number of reasons for this, really very small, discrepancy. For example, is the Plant Physiology and Biochemistry topic the same difficulty as the Genetics topic? Questions like this will continue to be considered as the year goes on.

What did the students think?

They have humoured me and done as asked, producing the vocab books and gamely accepting the vocab tests. They seem to not object massively to the intervention and, as the topic came to an end, were quite pleased with their final vocab books (I think). In fact, they have even suggested making the vocab test harder by mixing up previous key words.

What next?

My class / the experimental group have almost finished their second topic, Energy and Respiration, so I will have further data to consider in due course. However, their points of view are equally important to me so I have arranged a group interview with a few of the students and another separate group interview with a few students in the control group. It will be interesting to consider their responses amongst the data!

Appendix

Key words for the Plant Physiology and Biochemsitry topic:

  1. Abscisic acid (ABA)
  2. Absorption spectrum
  3. Accessory pigment
  4. Action spectrum
  5. ADP
  6. Aerenchyma
  7. ATP
  8. ATP Synthase
  9. Auxin
  10. Bundle sheath cells
  11. C3 plant
  12. C4 plant
  13. Calvin cycle
  14. Carotenoid
  15. Chlorophyll
  16. Chloroplast
  17. Dormancy
  18. Endosperm
  19. Giberellin
  20. Granum
  21. IAA
  22. Light dependent reactions
  23. Light independent reactions
  24. Limiting factor
  25. Mesophyll
  26. Palisade mesophyll
  27. PEP
  28. PEP carboxylase
  29. Phosphorylation
  30. Photoautotroph
  31. Photolysis
  32. Photophosphorylation
  33. Photorespiration
  34. Photosystem
  35. Reaction centre

 

Keywords and fluency of understanding

1 Reply

In many ways learning Biology is like learning a language. All subjects are laden with specific terminology, often with meanings that have a greater level of precision than when the words are used in everyday speech, but Biology must surely take the biscuit in this regard. The sheer scale of rote learning needed to access understanding of topics at A level is quite phenomenal. Certainly in the past I have been guilty of taking this for granted; the curse of knowledge has often led to some muddled conversations with pupils. So this year the main tweak to my A level teaching will be to focus on keywords as a way to drive a greater fluency of understanding.

As is always the case, I am neither alone nor the first to look into this. The importance of learning and recalling keyword definitions is a well-known and discussed area of education. For example, Dawn Cox’s recent post detailed her own thoughts and strategies to give pupils the best possible chance to understand Religious Studies holistically (pun most certainly intended). In Biology there has often been a focus on ‘big ideas’ that connect topics. Seeing the subject as a whole rather than as piecemeal topics is the difference between having a good understanding of Biology or an excellent one. Pupils who can interpolate within the A level topics are invariably those that do the best when confronted with atypical demands.

The word I have been using more and more to describe this sophisticated understanding is ‘fluency’. This term works well on two levels. Firstly, the more easily and articulately a pupil can express themselves is fundamental to showing what they understand, whether in writing, orally or in exam papers. Secondly, and aping the linguistic simile at the start of this post, fluency pertains to the ability to speak and write in a foreign language easily and accurately. In this case Biology is the ‘foreign language’ and once again the ease of communication is highlighted, but without the required accuracy there will be no deep understanding. Therefore, fluency within a subject depends on ease, articulation and, above all, accuracy of communication. If accuracy is the foundation of fluency, then it seems logical that having a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of keywords will allow a pupil to develop within the subject.

So what does this mean in a practical sense? What will I do differently this year in my classroom? Inspired by Dawn, I will be introducing weekly ‘vocab’ tests for my Sixth Form classes. We will spend about 5 minutes a week of lesson time looking through a selection of keywords for a topic, even if they are yet to be studied. Pupils will have a ‘vocab book’ and be expected to keep it up to date with the words covered. Then the next week they will be tested on the definitions of keywords. All of this will definitely be happening. I also hope to add in a comprehension task that will assess understanding more effectively… But this will require more time and thought. Bear with me while I try to find the right balance, but in time I hope to report any interesting findings.

Education is in good hands: SASFE17

2 Replies

DAQVmNDXYAAlqH8It seems an age has passed since Saturday when the second Forum on Education was held at St Albans School. Many ideas have been whizzing about my head since listening to the keynotes and popping in and out of the seminars (of course one of the great draw backs to organising a conference is not being able to attend sessions in full). The theme of Learning Relationships seemed to knit together the different topics on offer, with unusual perspectives giving a reminder of what is actually important for learners and teachers.

 

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank everyone present, delegates and speakers alike, for making the day so enjoyable to host. The conversations that flowed showed just how important it is to take time to reflect on and discuss what we do, emphasising keynote speaker Mike Grenier’s focus on slow education. The fact that all of the speakers were teachers, actually at the coal face of education, brought an honesty that can be hard to mimic. Certainly my one big ‘takeaway’ from the day is that education is in good hands. It is an absolute pleasure to have helped set up the right DAQnpyEXsAAcxpzenvironment to enable us to come together. With huge thanks to the cleaners, porters, catering team and John in reprographics who all enabled the conference to go ahead. And I would single out Rob Hagon and Network Support for their hard work in allowing the IT to be invisible throughout the day.

The St Albans School Forum on Education 2017 has set a high bar and following the success of the day, we will be looking to host our third conference at a similar point in the Summer Term 2018. Once again tickets will be in limited supply to ensure we retain the intimate and small-scale atmosphere that makes SASFE so special. Watch out for updates in September and January!

DARhoWaWAAAiPRL

Are you looking for speakers at your next conference or teachmeet?

I would whole-heartedly recommend all of the following, arranged in alphabetical order.

  • Dr Jill Berry – closing the conference with her keynote on how leadership can be used to maintain and improve working relationships within a school.
  • Elizabeth Carr – explored the role of the subject in learning relationships and how to model history as a discipline.
  • Dawn Cox – discussed how whole school initiatives need to be fully focused on learning and linked to research in her seminar titled ‘Where’s the learning?’
  • Andy Ford and Tom Hockedy – a session that presented the progress of an Action Research Project at Berkhamsted School trying to answer the question ‘If the learning environment is more advanced, will it create more powerful learners?’
  • Mike Grenier – opening the conference with a keynote on how Slow Education can help develop learning relationships in a school.
  • Dr Greg Hacksley – joined by St Albans School Upper Sixth pupils Dan, Darcey, Josh and Paddy this session took a pupil’s-eye view of education to answer the question ‘How do I learn?’
  • Matt Pinkett – used a mixture of anecdotal evidence, personal experience and research to argue that there is a masculinity crisis in our schools with suggestions of what schools can do to address it head on.
  • David Rogers – discussed the concept of grit, detailing a long term project that aims to develop academic resilience to give pupils the qualitites and qualifications needed for academic success.
  • Professor Sophie Scott – her pre-lunch keynote discussed how laughter acts as an emotional regulator in relationships. As Victor Borge put it “laughter is the shortest distance between two people.”
  • Kevin Squibb – gave a quick introduction to Hattie’s idea of Visible Learning, leading to discussion of how to take create assessment capable learners.
  • Drew Thomson – examined the importance of relationships between colleagues and looked at how staff can maximise the impact of those around them.
  • Bukky Yusuf – spoke about key strategies to establish effective learning behaviours with disaffected pupils in her seminar titled ‘Challenging classes and the lessons I learnt.’

DARtN3AXYAEdr1S

Learning Relationships: SASFE17

1 Reply

Discussion

On Saturday 20th May St Albans School is holding its second education conference, this year exploring relationships in learning. The event is intentionally small in scale and refreshingly non-corporate, taking the best aspects of a TeachMeet and combining an overarching theme with dedicated time and space to driving conversations over refreshments, breaks and lunch (and perhaps even in the pub after the official event has ended). As a forum, the day works by actively giving delegates the opportunity to discuss themes from the keynotes and seminars on offer. This year the schedule has been tweaked to allow even more opportunities for talk and thought. The seminar sessions are workshops in the true sense of the word, allowing those present to contribute and drive the collective thought process. The hugely positive feedback from delegates at last year’s conference is shared at the bottom of this post.

Keynote speakers

The fabulous Professor Sophie Scott will be providing much merriment and mirth with the science of that most human interaction, comedy and humour. As deputy director of UCL’s institute of Cognitive Neuroscience her research interests include the neural basis of vocal communication and how our brains control the production of voice. Professor Scott’s TED talk on why we laugh has been viewed almost 2.5 million times.

Audience

Find out more about taking the time to develop learning and Slow Education, the antithesis of the McDonald’s production line, with keynote speaker Mike Grenier. Mike is an English teacher and Housemaster at Eton College and “one of the leading lights of the ‘Slow Education’ movement”.

Jill Berry
Jill at SASFE16

Dr Jill Berry is returning to SASFE following last year’s highly successful closing keynote. Author of the book Making the Leap and a preeminent consultant on leadership, she will be bringing her unique perspective to the day. As a former English Teacher, Head of Department and Head, Jill will be discussing the leadership of relationships with ideas that can be applied to the ‘leaders’ in every classroom of a school.

About the theme

The more I teach, the more convinced I am that relationships are key to successful outcomes. Human interactions are what makes education work and ultimately why we will not be replaced with machines. SASFE17 will help frame the discussion of what makes learning work on the level of relationships; come along and be a part of this discussion! It would be great to have you there on the day.Discussion 2

Why come along?

Don’t take my word for it… See the feedback from the St Albans School Forum on Education 2016!.

Feedback: What was your favourite aspect of the day?

“The whole thing was great, actually. Each speaker brought something quite different to the table…I enjoyed being able to take some ideas away from all sessions I attended – every single one gave me a practical idea to take away that I could implement or adapt. Importantly, they have all had an influence on my thinking and my approach; on my philosophy. I was really impressed actually!”

“There was a refreshing honesty about what we both know and don’t know about education. Speakers were engaging and clear.”

“Provided food for thought. Challenged my thinking and viewpoints.”

Martin Robinson

Martin Robinson, mid-keynote, opening the conference in 2016

“Practical suggestions directly related to my subject area”

“The ability to be in a smaller, intimate group.”

“The discussions which took place beyond the seminars”

“A combination of delivery, hands-on work in groups, discussion.”

Feedback: What was the most beneficial aspect of the event?

“As I so often find to be the case the most beneficial parts of this conference were those where the opportunity for discussion with staff from a variety of backgrounds/viewpoints was provided. In particular, I found the inclusion of a student in one of the discussions to be most thought provoking.”

“Networking and chance to discuss.”

“Well structured day. Sessions right length. Liked the 3 short keynotes. I liked the fact it was a relatively small crowd.”

“The opportunity to discuss with teachers from very different schools and backgrounds”

“Small groups meant you felt part of the event rather than simply a number”

“Meeting contacts old and new”

“The commonality of the speakers”

“Stimulating and challenging ideas to take away”

Ian Yorston

Ian Yorston giving his keynote on IT’s role in assessment at SASFE16

“The small group sessions and opportunity to share ideas”

“The combination of excellent workshops and keynotes with time for networking. It being small helped here. The day flew by!”

“An excellent opportunity to meet like-minded colleagues.”

“The small seminar style of options, with the opportunity to meet other teachers with similar interests and concerns.”

“Meeting other enthusiastic teachers and engaging in stimulating discussions.”

“Meeting enthusiastic teachers local to me, in all subjects and levels of management was really refreshing and motivating.”

Transcription Factors

Leave a reply

Intracellular proteins that bind to specific regions of DNA to control transcription are known as transcription factors. Examples include:

  • PIF and DELLA proteins
  • Proteins coded by the regulatory genes of the lac operon
  • cAMP and the second messenger model
  • Products of proto-oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes

Gibberellin and DELLA proteins

DELLA proteins inhibit transcription by binding to a molecule known as PIF. This prevents PIF from transcribing DNA into mRNA. However, DELLA is broken down when the plant hormone gibberellin is present. The PIF is now free to join to the promoter on the DNA and start transcribing it into mRNA, which can then be translated by a ribosome.

In the case of wheat and barley seed germination, amylase is synthesised when the gibberellins destroy the DELLA proteins. This allows the starch in the endosperm of the seed to be broken down to provide a source of carbohydrate for respiration. E.g. the gibberellins turn on the gene for amylase production by destroying the DELLA proteins.

Glossary:

  • DELLA: proteins that inhibit the binding of transcription factors. Regulate amylase production in barley and wheat seeds.
  • Endosperm: tissue that provides a source of energy for the developing embryo of a seed.
  • Gibberellins: plant hormone that is involved in growth, germination and flowering.
  • Intracellular: within a cell, as opposed to extracellular meaning between cells.
  • lac operon: length of DNA found in E. coli that controls the expression of proteins involved in taking up and digesting lactose.
  • PIF: phtochrome-interacting protein, a transcription factor.
  • Proto-oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes: genes involved in the regulation of the cell cycle, growth and programmed cell death (apoptosis).
  • Second messenger model: a process involving intracellular signalling molecules, such as cyclic AMP, that are triggered by extracellular messengers, such as oestrogen.
  • Transcription: the production of mRNA from DNA.
  • Transcription factors: proteins that control the flow of information from DNA to RNA by controlling the formation of mRNA.
  • Translation: the production of a polypeptide by a ribosome from mRNA.

Biological Molecules: Carbohydrates

1 Reply

Carbohydrates are excellent examples of monomers and polymers. Their one unit monomers are known as monosaccharides. Some examples of monosaccharides include:

  • α-glucose
  • β-glucose
  • Galactose
  • Fructose

α-glucose and β-glucose are an example of a structural isomer, both have the same chemical formula, C6H12O6 but the atoms are arranged slightly differently.

alpha-glucose

alpha glucose

The diagram to the left shows the structural arrangement of atoms in α-glucose. Although not shown on the diagram, at each corner of the hexagon between the -H and -OH (or hydroxyl group) there is a carbon atom. These have been labelled clockwise as carbon number 1, carbon number 2 and so on. The only difference between α-glucose and β-glucose is the position of the -OH on carbon number 1. In α-glucose the hydroxyl group is below the plane of the ring, e.g. the H is above it. Whereas in β-glucose, the hydroxyl group is above the plane of the ring, e.g. the H is below it. One way of remembering this is by invoking the Swedish super group ABBA. Alpha (the -OH is) Below (carbon 1), Beta (the -OH is) Above (carbon 1). Hence ABBA, alpha below, beta above. The diagram below summarise this information.

alpha-v-beta-glucose

Disaccharides are made of two monosaccharides joined by a glycosidic bond. Three common disaccharides are shown below, along with the mononsaccharides that make them up.

  • Maltose, made from two α-glucose molecules
  • Sucrose, made from one α-glucose and one fructose molecule
  • Lactose, made from one α-glucose and one galactose molecule

During the reaction between two monosacchrides that results in a disaccharide, water is formed. Therefore we call it a condensation reaction. The process of making maltose is outlined in the diagram below:

condensation

The highlighted -H and -OH groups form the water and leave a -O- that joins the two monosaccharides, which is the glycosidic bond. The glycosidic bond’s precise position is between carbon number 1 on the left hand moecule and carbon number 4 on the right hand molecule, making a 1-4 glycosidic bond. The opposite of this process, e.g. splitting a disaccharide into two monosaccharides with the addition of water, is called hydrolysis.

In terms of a balanced chemical equation for condensation we show the following, note that the disaccharide has two fewer hydrogens and one fewer oxygen, which have formed the water.

C6H12O6 + C6H12O6 → C12H22O11 + H2O

Polysaccharides are carbohydrates with three or more monosaccharides joined together with glycosidic bonds. They are formed by condensation reactions and can be broken down by hydrolysis. Three common polysaccharides are:

Glycogen, a storage molecule found in animals made from α-glucose. Its highly branched and compact shape make it very well suited to this function. The diagram to the right represents this structure, with each circle representing α-glucose.

Starch, a storage molecule found in animals made from α-glucose. It is made up of linear chains of amylose and branched amylopectin chains. Starch is insoluble, meaning that it does not effect the water potential of the cells it is stored in, so does not effect osmosis.

Cellulose, a structural carbohydrate that makes up plant cells’ cell wall made from β-glucose. It forms straight chains that come together as microfibrils to support the cell.

If you would like to know more about how these polysaccharides form and where the glycosidic bonds are located see appendix (i).

We can test for the presence of reducing sugars (e.g. glucose), non-reducing sugars (e.g. sucrose) and starch with the following tests:

  • Test for reducing sugars – add sample to blue Benedict’s solution and heat above 80ºC / boil.  If reducing sugars are present, a red precipitate forms. Small amounts result in a green colour, going through yellow to orange to brick red.
  • Test for non-reducing sugars – first carry out the test for reducing sugars, but you will get a negative result (the Benedict’s solution remains blue). Then add dilute hyrdochloric acid to some of the original sample . Repeat the test for reducing sugars and you should get a positive result, e.g. it turn red.
  • Test for starch – add iodine solution to your sample. It should change colour from orange/brown to black/blue.

Glossary

  • Cellulose: polysaccharide that forms the cell wall in plants, made of β-glucose.
  • Condensation reaction: a chemical reaction involving the joining together of two molecules by removal of a water molecule.
  • Disaccharide: a sugar molecule consisting of two monosaccharides joined together by a glycosidic bond.
  • Glucose: a monosachharide that has two isomers, α-glucose and β-glucose.
  • Glycogen: a polysaccharide made of many glucose molecules linked together, that acts as a glucose store in liver and muscle cells.
  • Glycosidic bond: a C-O-C link between two monosaccharide molecules, formed by a condenstaion reaction.
  • Hyrdolysis: a reaction in which a complex molecule is broken down to simpler ones, involving the addition of water.
  • Hydroxyl group: a pair of atoms (O and H) found in carbohydrates and other molecules.
  • Monosaccharide: a molecule consisting of a single sugar unit with the general formula (CH2O)n.
  • Polysaccharide: a polymer whose subunits are monosaccharides joined together by glycosidic bonds.
  • Starch: polysaccharide found in most green plants as an energy store, formed from chains of amylose and amylopectin.

Appendix (i)

The formation of polysaccharides.

Cellulose forms 1-4 glycosidic bonds to make an unbranched chain, see below:

cellulose

Glycogen forms a mixture of 1-4 and 1-6 glycosidic bonds, hence the branching:

glycogen

The amylose in starch forms 1-4 glycosidic bonds, so is unbranched. However, the amylopectin branches are caused by 1-6 glycosidic bonds:

starch

EXTENDED IDEA: Children’s TV

1 Reply

When I was younger I quite wanted to be a Children’s TV presenter, a la Andy Peters or Philip Schofield. Things didn’t quite pan out that way, however, recently I have found myself starting to watch more and more Children’s TV shows. In this post I rank those that I have seen, giving a brief critique of each.

  1. Sarah and Duck: this is a totally wonderful programme. They lead a bit of a crazy life. But what Duck can do with just the narrowing of his eyes shows that dialogue can be greatly overrated and the animators are true masters of their craft. Supporting characters abound, all with well-developed back stories; Umbrella, Bug, The Shallots, Scooter Boy, Flamingo and John, Plate Girl, the Narrator, Bag Lady, Bag, Donkey, etc are all superb. But Cake takes the biscuit, his two episodes are genius. And the “It’s your birthday today” song has overtaken Happy Birthday in my estimation. Quite a feat! Wonderful entertainment from a young girl and her mallard.
  2. Thomas and Friends: a childhood favourite that has withstood a makeover without losing its charm. Always a good watch with plenty going on. Ok, Thomas is actually a bit of a loose cannon and pretty much every character has their faults (don’t we all?), but their desire to be a really useful engine is something we should all aspire to. FWIW, James is my favourite. I like his red paint and vainglorious ways. Similarly, Gordon’s phrase “it’s not wrong, we just don’t do it” has become a useful addition to my vocabulary when I really want to annoy someone. 
  3. Charlie and Lola: it’s always a pleasant experience watching this programme. Right from the theme music onwards it is spellbinding stuff. A feel good favourite.
  4. Fireman Sam: I thought I would hate this new rendering of an old classic, but it has won me over. Despite Sam’s head being ridiculously oversized, I can look past this anatomical-anomaly to enjoy the highjinx of Pontypandy. Special mention goes to Norman for being a one-boy accident zone, but who always sees the error of his ways and apologises in the end.
  5. The Adventures of Abney and Teal: two rag dolls living on an island in a lake in a city. Yet again the supporting characters enrich the programme to make the sum greater than its parts; Neap, the Poc Pocs, Bop and Toby Dog (please, please learn another tune!) all add a sense of whimsical fancy.
  6. Nelly and Nora: two Irish youngsters living the fun life in a caravan park. Another whimsy that is wholesome and good.
  7. In the Night Garden: this is another crazy show. One thing I cannot unsee is Iggle Piggle resembling former Prime Minister, David Cameron. The Pontypines are great fun (my father can’t stand them for some reason, interestingly he also has no time for the Pinky Ponk airship either) and spotting the Wottingers is a rare delight. Amazingly it apparently cost £14.5 million to produce 100 episodes. That seems a lot to me!
  8. My Family: (not the BBC sitcom) this gives the chance to gawp at the life of another family. It is a simple premise and one that works very well.
  9. Peppa Pig: this is like crack cocaine for the under fives. I’m not sure how the programme makers do it, but children seem to go absolutely nuts for it. Yes, Peppa is a bit bossy / naughty and the moral high-grounding can get a bit much after a while, but they’ve obviously found the recipe for success. And Mr Skinnylegs is such a good name for a spider.
  10. Baby Jake: I literally have no idea what is going on in this programme! This much I know, there’s a baby called Jake in it.
  11. My First: another Ronseal of a show, we watch a child experience their first [insert activity here]. An example, opening a bank account. A must for aspiring accountants everywhere.
  12. Bob the Builder: unlike Fireman Sam, this new imagining leaves me cold. Just hearing Bob drone on about his projects is enough to make me fall asleep. Pretty much every story involves one of the team screwing up a building job by ignoring the plan or disregarding instructions. Usually the miscreant is Scoop, a yellow digger, with a penchant for taking short cuts with dire consequences. The average episode starts with building something, someone ignore the plan, the thing they built falls down, the person who ignored the plan apologises, Bob says “never mind” and they build it again but this time properly. It’s a good job that Spin City seemingly has no other builders, because Bob’s crew are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful. I watch this programme in silent resignation. Dreadful.

I’m trying to be a little more innovative in my posts, see Extended ideas.

    Another book all Biology A level students should read

    1 Reply

    This is a follow up to a post on essential reading for anyone who is taking Biology A level. In short, I have already listed (in no particular order) The Red Queen, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Life Ascending, The Epigenetics Revolution and Darwin’s Island as books a Sixth Form biologist should read.

    Following the last post, a colleague and I debated the particular merits of each book and also the titles that were left out. The original was always meant to be the first in a series, so here I am with one more recommendation.

    The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

    Perhaps the most controversial omission from the original post was Professor Richard Dawkins. To be quite frank, I would be more than happy to add any of his back catalogue to this list. The man is a real inspiration in terms of the ground-breaking work he so eloquently summarised in The Selfish Gene. Seeing organisms as “survival machines” for the genetic material that is inherited from parent to offspring is absolutely key to the kind of ‘big idea thinking’ required to truly understand the discipline. My 30th anniversary edition sits slightly battered on a shelf in my office, bought when I started teaching to replace the even more battered version I had at university.

    Dawkins’ gene’s eye view of evolution totally changes the focus of how we look at biology. Additionally, its style is accessible for pre-undergraduate students, although concentration and a sharp mind are useful to keep up with the witty and energetic prose. Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what W D Hamilton, widely recognised as one of  most significant evolutionary theorists of the twentieth century, had to say:

    “This book should be read, can be read, by almost everyone. It describes with great skill a new face of the theory of evolution.”

    Still not convinced? Why not watch this short clip, The Selfish Gene Explained, from the Royal Institute to whet your appetite for the book. Following this, dive head first in to the book. Keep doing this and you will be amazed at just how much you can get from The Selfish Gene.  Just like the Necker cube mentioned in the preface to the second edition, you will see different perspectives on the theory of evolution via natural selection.