Tuesday, 27 September 2011

science process skills

Assalamualaikum w.b.t

This morning, I had a KPD3016 class. Today, I learned about science process skill. Do you know what is science process skill??? There are twelve skills in science process skill.

1. Pemerhatian (observation)

  • Kemahiran menggunakan lima deria iaitu pendengaran, penglihatan, bau, rasa dan sentuhan untuk mengumpul maklumat tentang sesuatu objek atau fenomena

2. Mengelas (classifying)

  • Menggunakan pemerhatian untuk mengelaskan objek atau peristiwa mengikut persamaan atau perbezaan.
3. Mengukur dan menggunakan nombor (measuring and using numbers)
  • Kebolehan membuat pemerhatian secara kuantitatif yang melibatkan penggunaan alat piawai.
4. Membuat inferens (inferring)
  • Penerangan kepada pemerhatian.
  • Membuat kesimpulan awal yang logik yang mungkin benar atau tidak benar untuk menerangkan sesuatu pemerhatian, fenomena, kejadian atau peristiwa.
  • Biasanya dibuat berdasar pengalaman yang lalu.
5. Meramal (predicting)
  • Proses untuk menentukan dan menjangka peristiwa yang akan berlaku.
  • Berdasarkan kepada pemerhatian dan pengalaman yang lalu atau data yang sangat dipercayai.
6. Berkomunikasi (communicating)
  • Kemahiran yang merujuk kepada kebolehan menerima, memilih dan mempersembahkan maklumat atau idea dalam pelbagai bentuk.
  • Mempersembahkan idea dalam pelbagai bentuk seperti secara lisan, graf, jadual atau gambar rajah.
7. Menggunakan perhubungan ruang dan masa (using space-time relationship)
  • Kebolehan memperihalkan atau menunjukkan lokasi, arah, bentuk dan saiz sesuatu objek dan perubahannya mengikut masa.
8. Mentafsir data (interpreting data)
  • Kebolehan memberi penerangan rasional tentang objek, fenomena atau pola berdasarkan maklumat yang dikumpul.
9. Mendefinisi secara operasi (defining operationally)
  • Proses memberi definisi tentang sesuatu konsep atau keadaan dengan menyatakan perkara yang perlu dilakukan dan diperhatikan.
  • Menggunakan cara yang boleh memberikan satu nilai bernombor.
10. Mengawal pembolehubah (controlling variables)
  • Manipulated variable 
  • Fixed variable
  • Responding variable
11. Membuat hipotesis (hypothesising)
  • Proses menyatakan satu kenyataan umum yang difikirkan benar berdasar inferens untuk menerangkan sesuatu perkara atau peristiwa.
12. Membuat eksperimen (experimenting)
  • Kebolehan melaksanakan prosedur untuk menguji sesuatu hipotesis.
Selepas itu, saya belajar mengenai Myths in Science. Kami dikehendaki menjawab 12 soalan. Malangnya, saya hanya betul 4 soalan. Sangat sikit huhu...

That's all for now...sekian....

sambungan

Assalamualaikum w.b.t

As I had promised, I will continue sharing the lesson in KPD3016 class this morning. I learned about learning outcomes (hasil pembelajaran). Hasil pembelajaran adalah berbeza dengan objektif pembelajaran. Objektif pembelajaran adalah lebih bersifat am berbanding hasil pembelajaran yang lebih khusus. Hasil pembelajaran adalah satu pernyataan yang mendapatkan apa yang ingin dicapai dari segi pengetahuan, pengetahuan dan sikap serta nilai. Saya telah belajar bagaimana untuk menulis hasil pembelajaran (learning outcomes). Ia terbentuk dari 5 komponen.

Komponen hasil pembelajaran :-
1. frasa merujuk kepada kumpulan sasaran.
2. kata kerja aktif.
3. objek bagi kata kerja.
4. konteks / keadaan
5. standard / kriteria.

Dr. Nurul telah menerangkan beberapa contoh hasil pembelajaran yang mempunyai kelima-lima komponen tersebut. Selepas itu, saya belajar mengenai Kemahiran Proses Sains (KPS). It continue by tomorrow... let's wait for it...

That's all for now...advice from experts "have enough sleep, so you can focus in class"...tata ;)


Monday, 26 September 2011

Assalamualaikum w.b.t

How's your day??? Always fine... Alhamdulillah... Today is Monday. So it means that I'll update my blog to tell about what I've learned in the KPD class this morning. I think I learned a lot today. Wow, I already learned how to write learning outcomes, it seems like I'm going to be a teacher sooner or later. Yup, in this coming two years, InsyaAllah.

Di awal pembelajaran, saya belajar mengenai perbezaan antara matlamat (goal) dan objektif (objective). Objektif adalah sesuatu yang lebih jelas dan dapat dicapai dalam jangka masa pendek. Ia lebih berstruktur dan konkrit dan ia ke arah mencapai sesuatu matlamat. Manakala matlamat pula ialah hasrat jangka panjang yang hendak dicapai dan kurang berstruktur. 

"Goals without objectives can never be accomplished while objectives without goals will never get you to where you want to be”

That's all for now...i'm going to meeting to discuss about seminar next week...I'll continue sharing about what I've learned next entry...see you then :)




Sunday, 25 September 2011

let's read this....


IAEA Nuclear Safety Action Plan Approved by General Conference

IAEA General Conference

IAEA General Conference
IAEA General Conference. (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA)
On 22 September 2011, the IAEA General Conference unanimously endorsed the Action Plan on Nuclear Safety that Ministers in their Declaration at the IAEA's June Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety requested.
IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano stated:
"The IAEA's 151 Member States have today endorsed the Agency's Action Plan on Nuclear Safety.
This Action Plan - the product of intensive consultations with Member States - is both a rallying point and a blueprint for strengthening nuclear safety worldwide.
It contains concrete and achievable actions to make nuclear safety post-Fukushima more robust and effective than before.
At its core is greater transparency. If there is more transparency, there is more incentive to implement all the actions in the Plan, and to be seen to do so.
We count on Member States to implement the Action Plan fully and vigorously. It will need their sustained commitment and full involvement.
I am confident that the UN High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and Security, which is taking place in New York today, will continue to build on the foundations laid here in Vienna.
We must not lose our sense of urgency. Public expectations are very high.
This is an Action Plan. It is time for action."
See Story Resources for more information.
-- By Peter Kaiser, IAEA Division of Public Information

(Note to Media: We encourage you to republish these stories and kindly request attribution to the IAEA).
Assalamualaikum w.b.t.

How your day??? Hopefully fine...

Hari ni saya ingin berkongsi mengenai kata-kata dari Prof. Emeritus Dato' Dr. Noramly Muslim. Mungkin kata-kata dari seorang pakar ini boleh membuka mata masyarakat umum mengenai tahap keselamatan sesebuah loji nuklear reaktor. 


Menurut Prof Noramly, negara ini sudah pun mempunyai sekumpulan saintis dan jurutera nuklear yang sudah mencakau umur untuk menerajui pembinaan NPP itu. Bagaimanapun beliau musykil Malaysia akan menghadapi kemungkinan kehilangan pakar-pakar nuklearnya melalui persaraan wajib dan tarikan perpindahan ke negara lain. Selain itu, beliau juga ada menyebut bahawa NPP hari ini direka dengan cukup selamat berikutan kemajuan besar dicapai dalam rekaan loji dan penerapan pelbagai ciri keselamatan. Mengenai persoalan tentang bahan buangan dari tenaga ini pula, beliau menerangkan bahawa loji jenis baru sedang direka bagi membolehkan bahan terpakai boleh dikitar semula untuk generasi loji akan datang lantas ia akan dianggap sebagai aset dan bukan lagi sebagai bahan buangan.


Setakat ini sahaja perkongsian saya buat kali ini. Sekian.

Friday, 23 September 2011

Assalamualaikum w.b.t

Hello everyone!!! How are you today, hopefully with a high spirit to become a great physics teacher after having the KPD3016 class this morning. Okay, now let me share on what I've studied in the class.

To do an important decision is not a simple task. Today I would like to share about skillful decision making. This skill may be used ti decide a last decision in our project based learning. When we are making the decision, let's answer this question first,

1. What makes a decision necessary?
2. What are my options?
3. What are the likely consequences of each option?
4. How important are the consequences?
5. Which option is the best in     of the consequences?

Then, we have options and factors to consider in skillful decision making. We can simply write it in the form of table,


Option
Factors to consider




Selepas itu, kami berbincang mengenai teori behavior dan konstruktivis. Teori konstruktivis sangat popular digunakan dalam pengajaran subjek sains. Kami dikehendaki mencari satu modul bekonsepkan teori konstruktivis. Apa yang kami dapat ialah Model Konstruktivisme 5-Fasa Needham,

1. Orientasi - Menimbulkan suasana.
2. Pencetusan idea - Murid dan guru sedar tentang idea terdahulu.
3. Penstrukturan semula idea -
    i . penjelasan dan pertukaran - mewujudkan kesedaran tentang idea alternatif yang berbentuk saintifik.
    ii. pendedahan kepada situasi konflik
    iii. pembinaan idea baru
    iv. penilaian

4. Aplikasi idea - Pengukuhan kepada idea yang telah dibina
5. Refleksi - Menyedari tentang perubahan idea murid. Murid dapat membuat refleksi sejauh mana idea asal     mereka berubah.

Di sini saya lampirkan prinsip pembelajaran konstruktivisme :-

  • Pembelajaran ialah proses berterusan yang aktif.
  • Pembelajaran melibatkan aktiviti mental dan sosial.
  • Pembelajaran melibatkan bahasa.
  • Pembelajaran memerlukan pengetahuan untuk belajar.
  • Pembelajaran memerlukan masa yang mencukupi.
  • Metakognisi 

Sekian dulu perkongsian untuk kali ini. 








Tuesday, 20 September 2011

PENDIDIKAN, INSTRUKSI, PENGAJARAN, TEKNOLOGI, PENAKSIRAN DAN PEMBELAJARAN

Assalamualaikum w.b.t

Syukur ke hadrat Ilahi dengan limpah dan kurniaNya masih dapat menjalankan kehidupan seperti biasa. Pagi tadi telah selesai kelas KPD3016. Apa yang saya dapat dalam kelas hari ini adalah mengenai pembelajaran inkuiri. Pembelajaran ini adalah bermula dengan persoalan. Teknik yang digunakan ialah teknik KWHL. Teknik ini dapat monitor pembelajaran secara eksplisit. Tahu tak apa itu teknik KWHL??? Kalau tak tahu jom saya terangkan. Ia menjadi senang jika dirumuskan dalam bentuk jadual.


What you Know
What you Want to know
How to find out
What you Learned









Apa yang perlu dilakukan ialah pelajar hendaklah mengisi lajur-lajur dalam jadual di atas.

Ni jadual yang saya buat

What you Know
What you Want to know
How to find out
What you Learned
Penaksiran : proses mengumpul maklumat tentang apa yang pelajar tahu dan apa yang mereka boleh lakukan
Pembelajaran : proses mendapat ilmu
Pengajaran : proses member ilmu
Instruksi : arahan @ penunjuk arah
Teknologi : alat batu mengajar
Pendidikan : satu ilmu, proses mendapat pengetahuan
Cara untuk menjalankan dalam kelas.

Hubungan antara kesemua elemen ini.
Belajar dari pensyarah

Internet
Kaitan antara keenam-enam elemen tersebut.

Maksud yang lebih tepat.

Konsep penting dalam pendidikan.

Terlibat dalam perbincangan.

Menerima pendapat orang lain.


Lajur keempat diisi setelah selesai pembentangan dari setiap kumpulan. Pembentangan pagi tadi mengenai tajuk Pendidikan, Instruksi, Pengajaran, Teknologi, Penaksiran dan Pembelajaran. Kami dibahagikan kepada beberapa kumpulan dan dikehendaki mencari maksud mengenai istilah-istilah tersebut. Kemudian kami dikehendaki membuat carta alir untuk melihat kaitan antara kesemua istilah tersebut.


Di sini, saya sertakan maksud bagi istilah dengan lebih tepat :-

Pendidikan: Proses di mana pelajar mampu mempelajari sesuatu dengan tujuan membangunkan dirinya secara holistik. Pendidikan boleh jadi formal, non-formal, dan informal.
Instruksi: Proses memudah cara pembelajaran ke arah objektif yang telah ditetapkan sama ada melalui guru atau cara lain
Pengajaran: Tindakan guru secara langsung yang direka bentuk bagi membantu pembelajaran
Teknologi: Set peralatan dan sumber yang membantu menyelesaikan masalah adaptasi yang dihadapi manusia dalam persekitarannya


Penaksiran: Proses mengumpul data tentang apa yang pelajar tahu dan boleh lakukan bagi membantu dalam proses membuat keputusan.
Pembelajaran: Proses membina dan mendapat pengetahuan, kemahiran, sikap, dan nilai tertentu yang boleh diaplikasikan
Pembangunan: Penambahan kepada pengetahuan, kemahiran, sikap, dan nilai dari tahap yang khusus kepada yang lebih am. Pembangunan memerlukan masa dan pengalaman pembelajaran yang banyak serta kematangan.

Sekian dulu perkongsian untuk hari ini. InsyaAllah akan sentiasa berkongsi ilmu dari semasa ke semasa.




Sunday, 18 September 2011

sedikit pendapat

Assalamualaikum w.b.t.

Malaysia sedang mengalami krisis kekurangan sumber bahan api seperti gas asli, minyak dan arang batu. Kekurangan ini disebabkan permintaan yang semakin meningkat oleh penduduk di negara ini. Krisis ini mendorong pihak berwajib untuk menerokai sumber alternatif lain yang boleh dijadikan sumber utama di Malaysia seiring dengan usaha menjadi negara maju. Kerajaan Malaysia menjalankan kajian terhadap tenaga nuklear untuk dijadikan sumber utama. Loji nuklear reaktor mungkin akan dibina dalam masa 10 tahun akan datang. 

Namun, kejadian di loji Fukushima di Jepun yang lalu telah menyebabkan ramai pihak yang menyeru kerajaan supaya menjalankan kajian semula sama ada tenaga ini sesuai dijadikan sumber utama negara. Memang tidak dinafikan tenaga ini mendatangkan banyak kebaikan kepada negara kita. Namun, kajian yang lebih terperinci perlu sentiasa dijalankan kerana sedikit kesilapan di loji ini mendatangkan kesan yang sangat buruk kepada seluruh rakyat Malaysia. 

Di sini saya ada menyelitkan satu video tentang pendapat Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad yang menyuarakan pendapat beliau tentang pembinaan reaktor nuklear di Malaysia. Selamat menonton...


video

Ini pula keratan akhbar tentang pendapat dari Tun Dr Mahathir...



Diharapkan entri kali ini membuatkan kita sama-sama berfikir tentang kebaikan dan keburukan tenaga nuklear ini. Kajian keselamatan yang sangat mendalam harus dititkberatkan. Renung-renungkan...

Sekian...

Friday, 16 September 2011

Is nuclear energy safe???

Assalamualaikum w.b.t

Based on the title above, what do you think???Is it safe to build nuclear power plant in our country and make it as the dominant energy in Malaysia. Here, I want to share about nuclear disaster that had happen.




By David Teeghman

Nuclear power has something of a checkered history. Although it does provide carbon-free energy at reasonable prices, it has exposed its dangerous side with near meltdowns and leaked radiation. The International Atomic Energy Agency -- an intergovernmental agency for scientific co-operation in the nuclear field -- judges nuclear accidents based on the International Nuclear Event Scale, which ranges from 1 to 7. The most serious events are classified as a 7, referred to as a "major accident," while a 1 is considered a minor "anomoly."

"It's very important that we have an effective way to communicate with the public the seriousness of a nuclear accident," Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Scott Burnell told Discovery News.

That rating system, along with reports and information from the regulatory commission and the United States Department of Energy, helped develop this list of the five most dangerous nuclear accidents in the world.



Chernobyl, Soviet Union (now Ukraine)
April 26, 1986
INES Rating: 7
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons



The Chernobyl nuclear accident is widely regarded as the worst accident in the history of nuclear power. It is the only nuclear accident that has been classified a "major accident" by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

During a routine test, the plant's safety systems were turned off to prevent any interruptions of power to the reactor. The reactor was supposed to be powered down to 25 percent of capacity, but this is when the problems began. The reactor's power fell to less than one percent, and so the power had to be slowly increased to 25 percent. Just a few seconds after facility operators began the test, however, the power surged unexpectedly and the reactor's emergency shutdown failed. What followed was a full-blown nuclear meltdown.

The reactor's fuel elements ruptured and there was a violent explosion. The fuel rods melted after reaching a temperature over 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit. The graphite covering the reactor then ignited and burned for over a week, spewing huge amounts of radiation into the environment.

About 200,000 people had to be permanently relocated after the disaster. IAEA reported in 2005 that 56 deaths could be linked directly to the accident. Forty-seven of those were plant workers and nine were children who died of thyroid cancer. The report went on to estimate that up to 4,000 people may die from long-term diseases related to the accident. Those numbers are a subject of debate, however, as the Soviet Union did much to cover up the extent of the damage. The World Health Organization reported the actual number of deaths related to Chernobyl was about 9,000.

Kyshtym, Soviet Union (now Russia)
Sept. 29, 1957
INES Rating: 6


The Soviet Union was also home to the second-most disastrous nuclear accident, at the Mayak Nuclear Power Plant near the city of Kyshtym. IAEA classified the event as a Level 6 Disaster, which is a "serious accident."


Soviet scientists were frantically trying to catch up to the Americans after World War II when they began construction of the Mayak nuclear facility. Soviet nuclear knowledge had many holes, so it was impossible to know whether some decisions made in the construction were safe. As it turned out, many of those decisions seriously compromised the plant's facility.


Initially, the plant's operators simply dumped the nuclear waste into a nearby river, before a storage facility for that waste opened in 1953. The storage facility began to overheat, and a cooler was soon added, but it was poorly constructed.


In September 1957, the cooling system in a tank containing about 70 tons of radioactive waste failed, and the temperature started to rise. This caused a non-nuclear explosion of dried waste. There were no immediate casualties as a result of the explosion, but the IAEA found there had been a significant release of radioactive material into the environment. The radioactive cloud spread out for hundreds of miles to the northeast.


The Soviet government released little information about the accident, but was forced to evacuate 10,000 people in the affected area after reports surfaced of people's skin literally falling off. The radiation is estimated to have directly caused the deaths of 200 people due to cancer.

Windscale Fire, Great Britain
Oct. 10, 1957
INES Rating: 5
Image credit: Getty Images




Great Britain's first foray into nuclear energy had been successful for several years before the Windscale fire occurred in 1957. Operators noticed that the reactor's temperature was steadily rising when it should have been decreasing. They originally suspected the equipment was malfunctioning, so two plant workers went to inspect the reactor. When they reached the reactor, they discovered it was engulfed in flames.


At first, they did not use water, because plant operators were worried the flames were so hot the water would break down instantly, and the hydrogen in the water would cause an explosion. But their other methods to put out the fire did not work, and so they turned on the hoses. The water was able to put the fire out without an explosion.


It is estimated that 200 people in Britain developed cancer because of Windscale, half of them fatal. The exact number of fatalities is hard to come by because the British government attempted to cover up how serious the fire had been. Prime Minister Harold Macmillan worried the incident would embarrass the British government and erode public support for nuclear projects. It's also difficult to put an exact number on the deaths because radiation from Windscale spread hundreds of miles across northern Europe.
Three Mile Island, United States
March 28, 1979
INES Rating: 5
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons





The United States' most disastrous nuclear accident took place at the Three Mile Island Plant near Harrisburg, Penn., the state's capitol.


It all began with a simple plumbing break down. A small valve opened to relieve pressure in the reactor, but it malfunctioned and failed to close. This caused cooling water to drain, and the core began to overheat. The machines monitoring conditions inside the nuclear core provided false information, so plant operators shut down the very emergency water that would have cooled the nuclear core and solved the problem. The core began to overheat, and reached 4,300 degrees Fahrenheit. The water nearly reached the fuel rods, which would have caused a full meltdown of the core. But the nuclear plant's designers were finally able to reach the plant operators several hours later to instruct them to turn the water back on, and conditions stabilized.


"Not only were there issues with training of operators, but management for both the plant and NRC did not know how to approach this kind of emergency and to communicate with the public," said Burnell.
The NRC determined that no one had died of causes related to the incident at Three Mile Island, but found there might be one excessive cancer death over a 30-year period as a result of radiation. Only one person outside of the nuclear plant was found to have any radiation in his system after the incident.


Three Mile Island had a profound impact on the public's attitude toward nuclear energy. In the 30 years since Three Mile Island, not a single nuclear power plant has been approved for development.
Tokaimura, Japan
Sept. 30, 1999
INES Rating: 4


Japan's most disastrous nuclear accident took place over a decade ago just outside Tokyo.


A batch of highly-enriched uranium was prepared for a nuclear reactor that had not been used in more than three years. The operators had not been trained in how to handle uranium that was so highly enriched. They put far more uranium into the solution in a precipitation tank than is allowed. The tank was not designed for this type of uranium. Only when the tank was drained of the solution could the critical reaction be stopped, but by then, it was too late for two or the three operators working with the uranium, as they died of radiation.


Less than a hundred workers and people who lived nearby were hospitalized for exposure to radiation and 161 people who lived within 1000 feet of the plant were evacuated, according World Nuclear Association.


The other nuclear disaster that had happen is in Fukushima, Japan on 11 March 2011. The Fukushima disaster is the largest of the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents and is the largest nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, but it is more complex as multiple reactors and spent fuel pools are involved. The nuclear crisis stemming from the earthquake and tsunami is currently considered at level five, the same grade given to nuclear accident on Three Mile Island in the US in 1979.

When read this article, don't you feel scared to let our country use this type of energy. We still need more research on this issue in order to make sure no such accident to be happen again. Take lessons from the past...


Thanks...