AIOU solved assignment Autumn 2020-2021 – Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU) course code 6414 subject (Teaching of General Science) Assignments No 1-2 semester autumn 2020 B.Ed Level (1.5 Years, 2.5 Years and 4 Years) are available in soft copy (PDF file). All details related to AIOU Solved Assignments are as under:-
B.Ed (1.5 Years, 2.5 years and 4 years)
Teaching of General Science
AIOU Assignment Autumn 2020 Free Download
Any student who wants to download Allama Iqbal Open
University AIOU solved assignment 2021-2022 can click on download
button. Assignment is available in PDF file format.
AIOU Solved Assignment Code 6414 Autumn 2020
Q.1 Find the attitude of science teachers in your locality towards science.?
I often use these questions to launch professional learning with administrators, instructional coaches, and teachers. Some have exceptionally vivid memories of engaging science at school, from experimenting with pill bugs to blowing something up. But just as many remember reading uninspiring textbooks and answering end-of-chapter questions. The takeaway from such anecdotes is clear: Good teaching matters, and it’s tough to teach
science well. An effective science lesson requires planning engaging activities, navigating tricky science concepts, anticipating and working with students’ preconceptions and misconceptions, and making difficult decisions on the fly. Good teaching is an art-one performed by those with specialized knowledge and skills.
The adoption of new standards in many states-such as the Next Generation Science Standards-adds greater complexities for teachers. These standards shift expectations for how students learn science and often bring significant changes in curriculum and classroom practices. Many
science teachers already lack “sufficiently rich experiences” with content in the science discipline they currently teach, according to a 2015 National Academy of Sciences report. This problem is especially significant both at the elementary level and in schools serving predominantly low-income student populations. But the problem is by no means limited to the elementary grades. Currently, two out of every five high schools aren’t offering physics because they don’t have qualified teachers. The new Every Student Succeeds Act calls for top-notch science teachers for all students. But how can we get there? The key is continuous learning. And the quality of that continuing education matters every bit as much as the duration.
“Good teaching matters, and it’s tough to teach science well.”
The National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education have championed rigorous research and development efforts to understand how best to support science learning for teachers and students alike. The 2015 National Academy of Sciences report concludes the most effective professional learning for science teachers focuses on content rather than just pedagogy; entails active learning; provides consistency across learning experiences and with school, district, and state policies; has sufficient duration to allow repeated practice and reflection on classroom experiences; and brings together teachers with similar experiences or needs.
Understanding the ingredients of high-quality professional learning is essential. But many districts and schools lack the in-house expertise to ensure teachers are thoroughly grounded in life, earth, and physical science. To make up for this deficit, many local education agencies have successfully partnered with outside organizations to provide content expertise that complements inhouse support from district instructional coaches, lead teachers, and staff developers.
In my own work at one such nonprofit educational organization, I direct Making Sense of SCIENCE-a professional-learning project that has a proven record of deepening teacher knowledge, transforming classroom practices, and measurably increasing student achievement in science.
The secret sauce is offering teachers first-hand learning experiences that are science-rich, cognitively challenging, collaborative, and fun-not unlike what we want for our K-12 students. Many teachers have never learned science in this way, so reading a book, listening to a webinar, or attending a workshop is inadequate. Instead, teachers benefit from actively engaging in scientific practices, such as asking questions, gathering and analyzing data, and engaging in scientific argumentation. We use written cases of practice-similar to those used in business, medicine, and law-to foster peer-to-peer conversations about students and develop teachers’ professional decisionmaking. Finally, we empower teachers to take responsibility for their own learning and to develop their identities as lifelong learners who are part of a professional community. For their part, regional groups-such as county offices of education or other intermediate agencies-and states can also invest in building capacity in science education. Michigan is
already taking such an approach. The Michigan Mathematics and Science Centers Network deploys science leaders from 33 regions across the state to provide science professional development to educators, serving large urban districts such as Detroit as well as more rural
remote counties in the north. A number of other states, including New Mexico and Texas, are also appropriating legislative funds earmarked to train a network of science leaders who, in turn, provide quality science professional learning at the local level. This effort is absolutely worthwhile. Research suggests that teachers who feel successful and supported in their work are more likely to stay in the profession-yielding significant fiscal
advantages. The researcher Richard Ingersoll has calculated that the revolving door of teacher turnover costs school districts upwards of $2.2 billion a year. More importantly, our students deserve high-quality science education that is inspiring, memorable, and prepares them for
college, career, and life. Ensuring more professional-learning opportunities for teachers will go a long way toward helping us realize these successes.
AIOU Solved Assignment Code 6414 Autumn 2020
Q. 2 Differentiate between basic process skills and integrated science skills. What are commonalities and different in these skills.
Science is both a body of knowledge that represents current understanding of natural systems and the process whereby that body of knowledge has been established and is being continually extended, refined, and revised. Both elements are essential: one cannot make progress in science without an understanding of both. Likewise, in learning science one must come to understand both the body of knowledge and the process by which this knowledge is established, extended, refined, and revised. The various perspectives on science—alluded to above and described below—differ mainly with respect to the process of science, rather than its product. The body of knowledge includes specific facts integrated and articulated into highly developed an understanding of those aspects of a theory that are well tested and hence are well established,
and of those aspects that are not well tested and hence are provisional and likely to be modified
as new empirical evidence is acquired.
The process by which scientific theories are developed and the form that those theories take
differ from one domain of science to another, but all sciences share certain common features at
the core of their problem-solving and inquiry approaches. Chief among these is the attitude that
data and evidence hold a primary position in deciding any issue. Thus, when well-established
data, from experiment or observation, conflict with a theory or hypothesis, then that idea must
be modified or abandoned and other explanations must be sought that can incorporate or take
account of the new evidence. This also means that models, theories, and hypotheses are valued
to the extent that they make testable (or in principle testable) precise predictions for as yet
unmeasured or unobserved effects; provide a coherent conceptual framework that is consistent
with a body of facts that are currently known; and offer suggestions of new paths for further
A process of argumentation and analysis that relates data and theory is another essential feature
of science. This includes evaluation of data quality, modeling, and development of new testable
questions from the theory, as well as modifying theories as data dictates the need. Finally,
scientists need to be able to examine, review, and evaluate their own knowledge. Holding some
parts of a conceptual framework as more or less established and being aware of the ways in
which that knowledge may be incomplete are critical scientific practices.
The classic scientific method as taught for many years provides only a very general
approximation of the actual working of scientists. The process of theory development and
testing is iterative, uses both deductive and inductive logic, and incorporates many tools besides
direct experiment. Modeling (both mechanical models and computer simulations) and scenario
building (including thought experiments) play an important role in the development of scientific
knowledge. The ability to examine one’s own knowledge and conceptual frameworks, to
evaluate them in relation to new information or competing alternative frameworks, and to alter
them by a deliberate and conscious effort are key scientific practices.
Science as a Process of Logical Reasoning About Evidence
One view of science, favored by many psychologists who study scientific reasoning,
emphasizes the role of domain-general forms of scientific reasoning about evidence, including
formal logic, heuristics, and problem-solving strategies. Among psychologists, this view was
pioneered by the work of Inhelder and Piaget (1958) on formal operations, by the studies of
Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1956) on concept development, and by investigations by Wason
(1960, 1968) of the type of evidence that people seek when testing their hypotheses. The image
of scientist-as-reasoner continues to be influential in contemporary research (Case and Griffin,
1990). In this view, learning to think scientifically is a matter of acquiring problem-solving
strategies for coordinating theory and evidence (Klahr, 2000; Kuhn, 1989), mastering
counterfactual reasoning (Leslie, 1987), distinguishing patterns of evidence that do and do not
support a definitive conclusion (Amsel and Brock, 1996; Beck and Robinson, 2001; Fay and
Klahr, 1996; Vellom and Anderson, 1999), and understanding the logic of experimental design
(Tschirgi, 1980; Chen and Klahr, 1999). These heuristics and skills are considered important
targets for research and for education because they are assumed to be widely applicable and to
reflect at least some degree of domain generality and transferability (Kuhn et al., 1995;
Ruffman et al., 1993).
Science as a Process of Theory Change
AIOU Solved Assignment Code 6414 Autumn 2020
This view places emphasis on the parallel between historical and philosophical aspects of
science (Kuhn, 1962) and the domains of cognitive development (Carey, 1985; Koslowski,
1996) in which domain-specific knowledge evolves via the gradual elaboration of existing
theories through the accretion of new facts and knowledge (normal science, according to Kuhn),
punctuated, occasionally, by the replacement of one theoretical framework by another. The
science-as-theory perspective places its emphasis less on the mastery of domain-general logic,
heuristics, or strategies and more on processes of conceptual or theory change. In this view, at
critical junctures, as evidence anomalies build up against the established theory, there can occur
wholesale restructurings of the theoretical landscape—a paradigm shift, according to Kuhn
(1962). For example, in both Kuhn’s account of scientific revolutions and Chi’s (1992) and
Carey’s (1988, 1991) accounts of critical points of conceptual restructuring in cognitive
development, not only do new concepts enter a domain, but also existing concepts change their
meaning in fundamental ways because the theoretical structure within which they are situated
radically changes (e.g., changes in concepts like force, weight, matter, combustion, heat, or
life). Nersessian (1989) provides a good example of the semantic changes that occur when
motion and force are examined across Aristotelian, Galilean, and Newtonian frameworks.
The Primary School Science Curriculum is presented as four levels, each of which covers two
years of primary school. Level 3, comprising third and fourth grade science, is the relevant level
for fourth grade TIMSS participants. The curriculum has a skills section and a content section.
The curriculum is designed to provide students with two key types of skill—working
scientifically, and designing and making—and reflects a constructivist and collaborative
approach. The curriculum emphasizes the importance of starting with children’s own ideas and
learning through interactions with objects and materials, and their classmates. Children ―create‖
new knowledge and learn about scientific concepts. Working scientifically involves:
Observing and constructing hypotheses
Planning and carrying out investigations, with an emphasis on fair testing
Recording and analyzing results
Sharing and discussing findings
Extending thinking to accommodate new findings
Designing and making involves looking for practical solutions to problems by exploring and
assessing everyday objects in terms of their functionality, their component materials, and their
design, and then using this information to plan, design, make, and evaluate artifacts or models.
These activities are intended to harness and nurture children’s creative and imaginative
The curriculum content is composed of four strands: Living Things, Materials, Energy and
Forces, and Environmental Awareness and Care. These strands, which are subdivided into
strand units, outline the concepts and ideas to be explored by children as they work
entifically, and are involved in designing and making. Children are expected to experience all
Level 3 strand units over the course of the third and fourth grades. Exhibit 2 shows the strands
and strand units for Level 3, and provides some examples of what children are expected to learn
within each strand unit.
Check Also: AIOU Solved Assignment