"Every production of genius must be the production of enthusiasm."
- Benjamin Disraeli
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Quiz Question
1. What is their swinging experience and why?
*Their swinging experience will be crooked. That means the outside of the trapeze (longer string) will wobble more when the swinging occurs because the shorter side will be the constant and going straight back and forth.
*Their swinging experience will be crooked. That means the outside of the trapeze (longer string) will wobble more when the swinging occurs because the shorter side will be the constant and going straight back and forth.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Trapeze
1. What is your personal experience with swinging on anything like a trapeze?
* I used to have a swinging bar on my play set that was very much like a trapeze that I would swing on by either my arms or by the bending at my knees.
* I have also been able to create more momentum that a trapeze does when on a swing to get higher.
2. What applications to "real life" do swinging objects have?
* Swings first off
* Pendulum
* Rope swings into water
3. What is your prediction about what will happen if two people are on one trapeze and only one is on the other and the one switches to the other? Explain (in terms of mass)
*I think that the momentum of the trapeze with two people will be greater due to the change in mass which then changes the rate of acceleration.
4. What understandings or ideas do you have about the science of back-and-forth swinging objects?
* I understand that gravity brings the objects down each time they reach their highest point of acceleration. Also, the momentum will begin to slow down unless a constant force is applied that continues the same momentum.
How does the weight of a swinging object affect the frequency of its swing?
Prediction: The greater the weight, the greater the frequency. (As more washers are added, the swing will increase, going back and forth. It will take longer (more strides) for the heavier to complete its trial.
*I think this because when I have been on a swing, if I create more weight which is known as a force, the higher I get as well as the longer (time) I go.
RESULTS:
Unfortunately our results are somewhat unconslusive. The averages are:
1 washer: 11.13
2 washers: 10.94
3 washers: 11
4 washers: 10.75
This could have very well been due to human error because the time was kept by eye watching the second hands on an analog clock. Also, the angle of the pendulum's first start was from the side and not the front so it could have been that it wasn't 100% accurately dropped each time.
Explore on own-> Change up materials and what questions do I come up with?
Changes: Used a large washer and found that on average there were 10 swings.
Questions:
*Does it actually have to do mostly with the rate of accerlation at the beginning?
*What would happen if we started the swing at a higher angle?
*Does the length of the string have any affect on the rate of frequency?
* I used to have a swinging bar on my play set that was very much like a trapeze that I would swing on by either my arms or by the bending at my knees.
* I have also been able to create more momentum that a trapeze does when on a swing to get higher.
2. What applications to "real life" do swinging objects have?
* Swings first off
* Pendulum
* Rope swings into water
3. What is your prediction about what will happen if two people are on one trapeze and only one is on the other and the one switches to the other? Explain (in terms of mass)
*I think that the momentum of the trapeze with two people will be greater due to the change in mass which then changes the rate of acceleration.
4. What understandings or ideas do you have about the science of back-and-forth swinging objects?
* I understand that gravity brings the objects down each time they reach their highest point of acceleration. Also, the momentum will begin to slow down unless a constant force is applied that continues the same momentum.
How does the weight of a swinging object affect the frequency of its swing?
Prediction: The greater the weight, the greater the frequency. (As more washers are added, the swing will increase, going back and forth. It will take longer (more strides) for the heavier to complete its trial.
*I think this because when I have been on a swing, if I create more weight which is known as a force, the higher I get as well as the longer (time) I go.
RESULTS:
Unfortunately our results are somewhat unconslusive. The averages are:
1 washer: 11.13
2 washers: 10.94
3 washers: 11
4 washers: 10.75
This could have very well been due to human error because the time was kept by eye watching the second hands on an analog clock. Also, the angle of the pendulum's first start was from the side and not the front so it could have been that it wasn't 100% accurately dropped each time.
Explore on own-> Change up materials and what questions do I come up with?
Changes: Used a large washer and found that on average there were 10 swings.
Questions:
*Does it actually have to do mostly with the rate of accerlation at the beginning?
*What would happen if we started the swing at a higher angle?
*Does the length of the string have any affect on the rate of frequency?
Monday, October 3, 2011
BB&W "Science Story"
My experience with BB&W and ideas within "science story":
*I can relate to the lesson by Ms. Travis the most because the BB&W activity done in class was set up most like this. There was some direction, given the sheets of paper and already laid out materials but each step was not fully represented by the teacher while requiring one specific result at the same time as everyone else. Of course we looked at a few different sheets that directed us differently (pink and yellow) but both had us figure out how to put the circuit together which taught us about the construction of it as well as allowed us to demonstrate our understanding of it.
*I and hopefully most nowadays, can say that Ms. Stone was too teacher-oriented therefore resulting in a class that only mirrored her actions rather than engraining a deepened understanding. On the flipside, Ms. Travis showed a great lessson; probing the students with questions that guided discovery and the freedom for students to wrestle with certain findings.
*A strong point that I have learned from previous readings about inquiry is that it is best to let students do the inquiry process first and then conclude with scientific explanations such as vocabulary.
*Something that I liked about Ms. Travis' strategy is one that we were able to carry out in the BB&W activty done in class; relating to prior knowledge. In class, we were to chose an answer to a question regarding BB&W purely based on what we already knew (regardless if we were to be right or wrong) and then try to solve the answer by our inquiry. This is like what Ms. Travis did with her students when she had them list what they could get to create a pound of electricity at the store first before the inquiry process even began.
Think about labs experienced, reading and own personal experience/ideas to create your
Ideal BB&W lesson
First, the students need to get their minds sparked of the idea of electricity with some probed questions such as, "What things do you experience every day that use electricity? Are there things that make electricity?"
The students will individually create a short list in their science journals and then after a few minutes be asked to share their ideas. I will put the responses up on the board so everyone can see what the class has come up with as well as the similarities between objects that create and use energy.
Depending on the responses, probe the students in questioning things they would find in a grocery store or at home that could make a homemade battery/circuit. Have them write down these ideas and pose a question about what makes electricity occur? Such as how a circuit need to be to create electricity. After that, move to:
Activity
Materials: lemon, copper penny, silver dime, knife, science journal
Procedure:
*Have students in groups of 2 (or 4 if materials hard to obtain)
*Give students preparation directions:
1. Roll the lemon a few times on a counter to get the juices flowing.
2. Clean a penny and dime with soap and water using an old toothbrush.
3. With adult supervision: Use the knife to make two parallel slits very close together in the lemon (a pinky width apart).
4. Insert the clean copper penny in one slit and the clean silver dime in the other slit. Be sure the coins do not touch each other.
ENGAGE: Have students pose a question as to what they are supposed to do with the coins in the lemon? Hint: What can you do to create electricity (since that is our topic)? What will they need to do in order to create a circuit that generates electricity?
**This is more student-centered because the student directly poses a question.
EVIDENCE: With the use of their questions above, they will create an experiment to formulate responses that explain their question(s). All groups could be different, all could be the same.
**This is more student-centered because every group is unique and creating an investigation that relates to their previously made question.
EXPLANATION: Students (groups) will formulate an explanation from what they gathered through their evidence that supports or goes against their original question.
**This is more student-centered because the students have a unique way to use their evidence in order to explain their findings but is not 100% so because they should be prompted with Why did this happen? How can it be done differently?
EVALUATE: Depending on the processes chosen by the class, students will try other techniques that their peers found to be useful and if totally off the mark, I will pose this:
* Make a prediction as to what may happen as your tongue touches the two coins. Record your predictions in the science journal.
**This is more student-centered because the groups are all individual and will rely on the findings of their peers in order to alter or enhance their original investigations. BUT if the groups are off the mark, then it will be more teacher-centered because the *prediction above, is giving them another possible explanation as to what is to be done with the lemon and coins.
5. Now, have 1 student from each group touch both coins with their tongue at the same time. What happens?
COMMUNICATE: Before recording observations in their science journal, have the student who felt the electricity explain the feeling to their partner. Each group should then discuss with another pair to see if they got the same results. Also, as a teacher pose these questions to get the students talking about how electricity works.
1. What is the power source?
2. What other fruit can be used instead of the lemon?
3. List the circuit parts.
**This can seen as right in between student and teacher centered. The students are openly talking, therefore quite possibly creating own arguments to solutions. However, the teacher must pose some questions that get the students on track to what and why things were happening.
*Adapted from http://scifiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids/D_Lab/activities/battery_3rd.html
*I can relate to the lesson by Ms. Travis the most because the BB&W activity done in class was set up most like this. There was some direction, given the sheets of paper and already laid out materials but each step was not fully represented by the teacher while requiring one specific result at the same time as everyone else. Of course we looked at a few different sheets that directed us differently (pink and yellow) but both had us figure out how to put the circuit together which taught us about the construction of it as well as allowed us to demonstrate our understanding of it.
*I and hopefully most nowadays, can say that Ms. Stone was too teacher-oriented therefore resulting in a class that only mirrored her actions rather than engraining a deepened understanding. On the flipside, Ms. Travis showed a great lessson; probing the students with questions that guided discovery and the freedom for students to wrestle with certain findings.
*A strong point that I have learned from previous readings about inquiry is that it is best to let students do the inquiry process first and then conclude with scientific explanations such as vocabulary.
*Something that I liked about Ms. Travis' strategy is one that we were able to carry out in the BB&W activty done in class; relating to prior knowledge. In class, we were to chose an answer to a question regarding BB&W purely based on what we already knew (regardless if we were to be right or wrong) and then try to solve the answer by our inquiry. This is like what Ms. Travis did with her students when she had them list what they could get to create a pound of electricity at the store first before the inquiry process even began.
Think about labs experienced, reading and own personal experience/ideas to create your
Ideal BB&W lesson
First, the students need to get their minds sparked of the idea of electricity with some probed questions such as, "What things do you experience every day that use electricity? Are there things that make electricity?"
The students will individually create a short list in their science journals and then after a few minutes be asked to share their ideas. I will put the responses up on the board so everyone can see what the class has come up with as well as the similarities between objects that create and use energy.
Depending on the responses, probe the students in questioning things they would find in a grocery store or at home that could make a homemade battery/circuit. Have them write down these ideas and pose a question about what makes electricity occur? Such as how a circuit need to be to create electricity. After that, move to:
Activity
Materials: lemon, copper penny, silver dime, knife, science journal
Procedure:
*Have students in groups of 2 (or 4 if materials hard to obtain)
*Give students preparation directions:
1. Roll the lemon a few times on a counter to get the juices flowing.
2. Clean a penny and dime with soap and water using an old toothbrush.
3. With adult supervision: Use the knife to make two parallel slits very close together in the lemon (a pinky width apart).
4. Insert the clean copper penny in one slit and the clean silver dime in the other slit. Be sure the coins do not touch each other.
ENGAGE: Have students pose a question as to what they are supposed to do with the coins in the lemon? Hint: What can you do to create electricity (since that is our topic)? What will they need to do in order to create a circuit that generates electricity?
**This is more student-centered because the student directly poses a question.
EVIDENCE: With the use of their questions above, they will create an experiment to formulate responses that explain their question(s). All groups could be different, all could be the same.
**This is more student-centered because every group is unique and creating an investigation that relates to their previously made question.
EXPLANATION: Students (groups) will formulate an explanation from what they gathered through their evidence that supports or goes against their original question.
**This is more student-centered because the students have a unique way to use their evidence in order to explain their findings but is not 100% so because they should be prompted with Why did this happen? How can it be done differently?
EVALUATE: Depending on the processes chosen by the class, students will try other techniques that their peers found to be useful and if totally off the mark, I will pose this:
* Make a prediction as to what may happen as your tongue touches the two coins. Record your predictions in the science journal.
**This is more student-centered because the groups are all individual and will rely on the findings of their peers in order to alter or enhance their original investigations. BUT if the groups are off the mark, then it will be more teacher-centered because the *prediction above, is giving them another possible explanation as to what is to be done with the lemon and coins.
5. Now, have 1 student from each group touch both coins with their tongue at the same time. What happens?
COMMUNICATE: Before recording observations in their science journal, have the student who felt the electricity explain the feeling to their partner. Each group should then discuss with another pair to see if they got the same results. Also, as a teacher pose these questions to get the students talking about how electricity works.
1. What is the power source?
2. What other fruit can be used instead of the lemon?
3. List the circuit parts.
**This can seen as right in between student and teacher centered. The students are openly talking, therefore quite possibly creating own arguments to solutions. However, the teacher must pose some questions that get the students on track to what and why things were happening.
*Adapted from http://scifiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids/D_Lab/activities/battery_3rd.html
Activitymania
The first science class lesson as a student in the elementary education program came straight out of a plastic tub in a 6th grade classroom at Kirkwood Elementary. At first, I thought to myself, "Oh wow, what a nice thing for the teacher to have access to! They have all of the equipment first hand, direction sheets printed out and result lists ready to go." This was during my Orientation course so I only got to see the students once a week but made a point to ask them what they learned since the last time I saw them. (obviously hinting at what in science did they learn, so I could get an idea about the topic I had most interest in) Unfortunately, so many of the responses were inconclusive and taught me that esstentially they learned 1 or 2 things, not so much concepts/big ideas, but details they remember from the activities they did in class. I found this to be alarming since they had so many resources to explore scientific phenomena and discover the relationships of the natual world around them. After reading "Activitymania," I have been able to synthesize my uneasy observation. They were not given enough opportunity for inquiry.
As the article states large on its first page(s), "Students learn the difference between "doing science" and doing science activities." As I related to an experience above, students need the concept of inquiry such as formulating a question, creating an investigation, formulating explanations, evaluating or reflecting on explanations and communicating their proposed explanations. Another difference between activitymania and inquiry is that assessment should be an on-going and authentic process (formative assessment) versus the immediate and specific answer assessment of activitymania.
It is easy for me to say now as an idealist that I really want to utilize these techniques of inquiry in my future classroom. They show that the students are really getting engaged, being in control of their learning and actually formulating knowledge from their investigations. Something from the article that made me realize that I will have to work on perfecting is my defining of conceptual goals and relationships of students' lives PRIOR to chosing which activity is appropriate. I find nothing wrong with small group, hands on activities; as long as they require the students to do the thinking and creating. Of course, if it is a more complex subject matter, I will propse the scientific explanations necessary, but once the inquiry work has been completed.
I plan to utilize the table illustrating the differences between activitymania and inquiry in my future when creating lessons so that I know what I should strive to be and what I need to avoid being.
A way to end like the wise:
"This movement will better ensure the development of scientifically literate citizens who will use science when making decisions to solve tomorrow's problems," (p. 18).
As the article states large on its first page(s), "Students learn the difference between "doing science" and doing science activities." As I related to an experience above, students need the concept of inquiry such as formulating a question, creating an investigation, formulating explanations, evaluating or reflecting on explanations and communicating their proposed explanations. Another difference between activitymania and inquiry is that assessment should be an on-going and authentic process (formative assessment) versus the immediate and specific answer assessment of activitymania.
It is easy for me to say now as an idealist that I really want to utilize these techniques of inquiry in my future classroom. They show that the students are really getting engaged, being in control of their learning and actually formulating knowledge from their investigations. Something from the article that made me realize that I will have to work on perfecting is my defining of conceptual goals and relationships of students' lives PRIOR to chosing which activity is appropriate. I find nothing wrong with small group, hands on activities; as long as they require the students to do the thinking and creating. Of course, if it is a more complex subject matter, I will propse the scientific explanations necessary, but once the inquiry work has been completed.
I plan to utilize the table illustrating the differences between activitymania and inquiry in my future when creating lessons so that I know what I should strive to be and what I need to avoid being.
A way to end like the wise:
"This movement will better ensure the development of scientifically literate citizens who will use science when making decisions to solve tomorrow's problems," (p. 18).
INSES ch. 1 & 2
I want to begin by saying thanks to the creators of this article because it finally mapped out what exactly inquiry is and how it is defined in the formal world of education. As an overview, I was able to apply the concepts of the 5 essential features of inquiry through the examples of the scientist observing dead trees amongst the Pacific coast as well as the 5th grade class observing the three trees. I enjoyed reading about their processes and being able to connect each essential feature to their steps involved.
A point from chapter 1 that I think is extremely important for all humans alike to keep in mind is that ALL humans, young or old, smart or dumb, are curious! I say screw the old saying of "Curiosity killed the cat," and think that it is an essential feature to work with when truly trying to learn or understand something. For years, humans have used the trial and error method that have taught people either not to do things because it ended up bad, or created some of the greatest scientific findings known today.
I also appreciated the clarification that inquiry is NOT the end all, be all of science education. It mentions that highly-structured and open-ended inquiries both have a place and that lessons must have an eye for both.
Chapter 2 also helped me realize that inquiry is not simply a learning goal for the students but a teaching method that a teacher must understand in order to create a classroom of fully engaged students.
I find the NSES standards to be somewhat bland in the fact that they are vague and run on but at the same time if they gave me a specific lesson plan for each grade/curriculum I would forsee myself being even more aggrivated. Even though the large number of explanations for each standard become tedious, I am glad that they offer a list for variety in order to mix up the amount of structure to the extent of student driven investigations.
The 5 myths at the end of Chapter 2 helped so that I did not leave this article having some fogged overlapping misconceptions about the concept. However, I still feel confused with how they are trying to promote inquiry so hard when the myths somewhat say well we promote it buut you need to have a variety of instruction, or it is also important for the teacher to instruct and so on. I understand but it is still hard for me to find a distinct line between inquiry-based instruction and noninquiry-based.
I guess this leads me into the Learning Cylce: Exploration->Invention->Discovery.
A point from chapter 1 that I think is extremely important for all humans alike to keep in mind is that ALL humans, young or old, smart or dumb, are curious! I say screw the old saying of "Curiosity killed the cat," and think that it is an essential feature to work with when truly trying to learn or understand something. For years, humans have used the trial and error method that have taught people either not to do things because it ended up bad, or created some of the greatest scientific findings known today.
I also appreciated the clarification that inquiry is NOT the end all, be all of science education. It mentions that highly-structured and open-ended inquiries both have a place and that lessons must have an eye for both.
Chapter 2 also helped me realize that inquiry is not simply a learning goal for the students but a teaching method that a teacher must understand in order to create a classroom of fully engaged students.
I find the NSES standards to be somewhat bland in the fact that they are vague and run on but at the same time if they gave me a specific lesson plan for each grade/curriculum I would forsee myself being even more aggrivated. Even though the large number of explanations for each standard become tedious, I am glad that they offer a list for variety in order to mix up the amount of structure to the extent of student driven investigations.
The 5 myths at the end of Chapter 2 helped so that I did not leave this article having some fogged overlapping misconceptions about the concept. However, I still feel confused with how they are trying to promote inquiry so hard when the myths somewhat say well we promote it buut you need to have a variety of instruction, or it is also important for the teacher to instruct and so on. I understand but it is still hard for me to find a distinct line between inquiry-based instruction and noninquiry-based.
I guess this leads me into the Learning Cylce: Exploration->Invention->Discovery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)