School Science Lessons
Topic 1 Science, maths and technology, ‘hands-on’ science activities,
scientific, experimental investigation
2012-05-09 SPwPwp
Please send comments to: J.Elfick@uq.edu.au
Table of contents
1.0 Science, maths and technology
Topic 1.0 Science, maths and technology
Topic 2.0 Why are ‘hands-on’ science activities
so effective for student learning?
Topic 2.1 What makes an activity scientific? (Primary)
Topic 2.2 Experimental investigation
Topic 1.0 Science, maths and technology
Science is concerned with gathering information by investigation reorganizing
the information to get patterns and regularities looking for explanations
and communicating findings to others. Finding patterns and regularities
simplifies the descriptions of observations. Observations are information
gained by using the senses. Investigations may be qualitative requiring general
observations or quantitative requiring counting or measuring. Science teachers
should conduct investigations so that the students can observe
phenomena
before listening to interpretations. The teacher should not say too much
but should let the experiment speak for itself. Effective teachers select
content, skills and learning experiences in the subjects they teach which
will foster students intellectual and personal growth. Teachers should be
able to express subject aims and goals for what students should expect to
gain from their learning experiences and organize subject content coherently
and at a level that is appropriate to the student group and their
learning.
This document contains ideas on practical teaching for the trained science
teacher. Students should not use this book unless under the supervision
of the science teacher. After choosing an experiment from this book, the
teacher should practice the experiment before demonstrating it to students
or before requiring students to do it. The teacher has the duty of making
the decision about whether the experiment is safe for the children in the
class.
Topic 2.0 Why are ‘hands-on’ science activities
so effective for student learning?
by Donna Satterthwait, School of Education, University of Tasmania, Australia
Teaching Science, Volume 56, Number 2, June 2010, pp. 7-10
From effective research, there is a general consensus that hands-on experiences
help students to learn. The question that this paper seeks to answer is what
it is all about these activities that fosters student learning. In a review
of the literature, three factors have been identified as making a significant
contribution to this strategy's success. They are peer interaction through
cooperative learning,
object-mediated learning, and embodied experience.
By taking these factors into account, teachers of science can design lessons
that explicitly utilize this knowledge
Introduction
The experiential value of hands-on activities in science education has long
been recognized as significant in engaging students. Hands-on activities represent
a strategy of teaching in which the students usually work in groups, interact
with peers to manipulate various objects. ask questions that focus observations,
collect data and attempt to explain natural phenomena. This is actually the
essence of science. Bredderman (1983) reported on the effectiveness of three
of the then 'new' primary science programs developed in the United States,
all of which were activity-based and showed considerable benefits to participating
students because of their emphasis on the use of hands-on strategies. In
a review of further research on the hands-on learning pedagogy, such activities
have been shown to improve children's science learning and achievement and
their attitudes towards science, increase science skill proficiency and language
development (specifically reading and oral communication), and also to encourage
creativity (Haury & Rillero, 1994). The potential for learning through
hands-on activities is quite amazing.
Despite each having a different emphasis, seven innovative primary science
curriculum projects funded and sponsored by the National Science Foundation,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the U.S. Office of
Education and various large universities (e.g. Harvard, University of California)
all had the use of hands-on science activities as an essential component
of their project design (Nay and Associates, 1971). However, not only do
these funding organizations, educational researchers, curriculum
project leaders and designers know that hands-on activities promote better
student learning outcomes, but from their own classroom experiences, most
teachers of Science agree. These teachers incorporate and promote a 'hands-on,
minds-on' approach in their practice because they believe their students
benefit from the implementation of this strategy. This style of teaching
is also well supported by evidence in other subject areas (see especially
the work of Boater, 2009 in mathematics education). The pedagogy of using
hands-on investigations, Involving students working in groups (Treagust,
2007 pp 383-4) and manipulating objects has been recognized as a desired
science teaching strategy for almost 200 years (Edgeworth & Edgeworth
1811 cited in Lunetta, Hofstein & Clough, 2007) and continues to influence
science education curriculum design as seen in the more recently developed
Australian Academy of Science-sponsored Primary Connections modules (Hackling
& Prain, 2005). Thus, a question needs to be asked - why is the teaching
of Science through the provision of classroom hands-on science activities
so efficacious? It is time to consider this pedagogic practice in light
of new research on learning and to link this teaching strategy with some
of the theoretical understandings that have emerged, especially from the
domain of cognitive psychology. This literature review may help to generate
discussions and hypotheses that can be investigated in science classrooms.
Understanding of Learning
The processes of learning are highly complex. To make meaning of these processes,
cognitive psychologists categorize what data and evidence they have collected
into various 'explanatory models' that provide a convenient way of communicating
multifaceted ideas and serve to integrate concepts and research findings into
systems that generate hypotheses and future applications (Spellman & Willingham,
2005). In this way, the cognitive psychologists' knowledge of human learning
can be advanced and better understood. However, the considerable progress
that has been made in understanding how learning takes place is rarely incorporated
into classroom practice in a deliberate way, but teachers 'know' what usually
works in their own classrooms; they can predict likely outcomes of their
students' engagement with particular tasks. Good, experienced teachers have
a deep understanding of their students' needs and attempt to address them
as best they can to achieve intended outcomes. One reason for the disjunct
between knowledge about learning among cognitive psychologists and teachers'
understanding of their students' learning is that there are many different
cognitive models and psychological explanations of how learning occurs in
individuals, and most have validity for particular
instances that are often narrowly defined and contextual. What happens in
the reality of the classroom is so much messier than the variable-controlled
investigations of psychologists.
Straightforward explanations are difficult to apply to messy classroom contexts.
The gap that occurs between the psychologist's experimental knowledge and
the teacher's classroom nous is widened by the teacher's difficulty in comprehending
the vocabulary of the psychologist, as well as the psychologist's lock of
understanding of classroom situations. Some psychologists may have a naive
view of classroom culture because of their long held expectations of how
a classroom should operate. Stereotypical classroom
cultural expectations, that rarely reflect reality, also prevail throughout
our society. This gap between teachers and psychological knowledge becomes
especially obvious in neurological or brain-based deficit studies, although
recently there has been a deliberate attempt to bridge the divide. As more
is being discovered about brain function. Some neuroscientists are looking
at ways in which their 'models' can inform classroom learning. The human
brain appears to be highly interconnected and, like a classroom, complex
and multidimensional. Neuroscientific studies provide enticing evidence
of plasticity in cellular interactions, establishment of networks and integration
of neurones and neurochemicals. Doidge (2007) gives examples of how different
sections of the brain interact and function together and influence thinking,
finding that imagining doing and actually doing both excite the same parts
of the brain -imagining one is using one's muscles actually strengthens them
(p. 205). As even more knowledge about brain function becomes available,
new models about learning are likely to be proposed. The development of these
new 'brain learning' models, when added to previously proposed cognitive
models of learning, make the time right to re-examine cognition models and
classroom practices to gain more insight and attempt to better understand
why particular teaching strategies 'work'. A good place to start this process
is to call attention to one such pedagogy, the 'hands-on activity', a well-regarded
science teaching strategy and examine why this strategy seems to cause students
to learn. Although there may be many attributes that contribute to the apparent
success of student learning within this way of teaching, for the purpose
of this paper three factors have been identified that play a significant
role in the hands-on practice. The three factors presented in this paper
are:
1. The influence of cooperative learning and social constructivist understandings;
2. Mediated learning through the use of objects; and
3. Embodiment as a way
of students gaining understanding and making meaning of their experiences.
Hands-on Experience
Student ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
Learning outcomes
^
^
^
¦
¦
¦
Peer
Object-mediated
Embodied
interaction
learning
experience
The question becomes how each factor contributes to the whole - that is,
the students' learning of Science. In this paper, these three factors will
be defined and then discussed in light of recent literature from research
studies in cognitive psychology.
1. Peer Interaction Through Cooperative Learning
Social constructivism theory informs the teacher of the importance of cooperative
group work for learning to occur among students. Effective understanding
is closely associated with cooperative learning pedagogy (Walberg, 1999),
As stated by Hattie (2009, p. 212), ... cooperative learning has a prime effect
on enhancing interest and problem solving, provided it is set up with high
levels of peer involvement. The sharing of knowledge, observations and beliefs
among peers through dialogue is at the core of social
constructivism. As
a translator of theory into classroom practice, Lemke (1990) advocates that
students be given an opportunity to engage in 'side conversations', especially
those that describe, compare or discuss real objects or events using the
scientific terms in a flexible way appropriate to the situation (p. 169).
Shifts in understanding need group discussions and / or arguments to enhance
the
creation of new meaning, so the provision of peer interactions in the
classroom seems to be an especially important prerequisite for
establishing
thought provoking conversations. Numerous studies and reviews have been undertaken
and published that demonstrate the key conceptual principle that humans make
meaning of their encounters through the comparison of the current with the
previous, that humans need to make sense of what they experience and that
they share knowledge by exchanging information through interactions with
each other, usually in dialogue. Notions of prior understanding and the discrepant
event have greatly influenced how science lessons and units are planned and
implemented. Social constructivism theory informs the teacher that if an
individual student's ideas are to be changed, new experiences that challenge
prior knowledge need to be provided, The teacher of Science provides opportunities
to challenge pseudoscientific beliefs through hands-on group work; research
has demonstrated that the creation of
cognitive dissonance can promote considerable
knowledge transformation (Guzzetti, Glass, Sayden & Gamas. 1993) to address
and challenge misunderstandings.
2. Object-mediated Learning
Some of the most productive, and common, science activities are those that
involve the manipulation of objects. This factor plays a significant role
in motivating and focussing our students on the learning of Science through
the use of objects in an activity in which they are to be engaged. Lev Vygotsky,
the educationalist often identified with social constructivism, viewed tools
('technical tools' in terms of objects, or 'psychological tools' as symbols
or signs) as defining and shaping human activity, not merely facilitating
it (Wertsch, 1990). Similarly, object- mediated learning contributes to
students' learning by causing them to question or seek explanations of the
effects of an object's use in particular contexts to bring about result',
which at 5 times are surprising. 11 seems as if the objects themselves possess
attributes that by their very nature implicitly 'instruct' their usage:
what is it about the object that
contributes to how it is used and what
is learnt through its usage? Children have been observed to alternate between
playing with objects and learning from objects, alternating between 'what
con 1 do with this object?' and 'what does this object do?' (Hutt, 1981,
p. 284). Manipulations of three dimensional things deliver an event reality
that is in itself intriguing and triggers curiosity among the students. It
is this physical connection to the object and the characteristics of the
object that allow manipulation, and thus learning, to occur. Often, during
lab activities, students 'play' with equipment in ways that are testing the
object's design, construction or purpose!
As well, students are more likely to remember things that elicit a positive
emotional response (Willingham, 2009). Students enjoy laboratory activities
(Lunetto, Holstein & Clough, 2007), they enjoy manipulating equipment
and observing the changes they cause. Students of Chemistry ranked interest
in chemistry classroom investigations over demonstrations, films, discussion
or lectures (Ben-Zvi, Hofstein, Samuel & Kempa, 1977), and students had
even more positive attitudes towards Chemistry when they participated in
genuine inquiry activities, rather than more traditional "recipe" practicals
(Kipnis & Hofstein, 2005; Palmer, 2009).
2. Embodiment
The third factor, embodiment, is closely linked to object mediated learning
since object manipulation requires movement of the human body. Embodied
learning con be defined as how we humans make sense of our perceptions and
actions as we negotiate our journey through our surroundings. By being present,
interacting with others and using equipment, an experience is created and
understood through this physicality. For example, recent data indicate that
the brain is modified by the use of tools: ... that the use of tools can
change the pattern of movement because the body schema has changed (1). This
comment was based on a study which provided direct evidence that using
tools changes the way in which the brain detects our body parts (Cardinali,
Frassineffi, Brozzoll, Roy & Farne, 2009). The mind and the body are
not separate entities, as had been thought by many philosophers, most famously
Descartes (Johnson, 2008). Rather the mind and body work synergistically
to build a repository of understandings expressed in brain structure and
abstract ideas. The structure and function of the body is represented within
the neural networks of the brain, and the formation of these networks is
a prerequisite to being able to remember and imagine experiences. From
our varied experiences, our ability to create and imagine develops and
grows as the neural network in our brain develops. Strick, Dum and Fiez (2009)
discuss neurological data that show how the cerebral cortex, the part of
the brain that has long been associated with thinking processes, links with
the cerebellum, the recognized area of motor regulation.
They
conclude that, ‘... the cerebellum plays a functionally important role in human cognition
and affect’ (p. 426). It appears that the brain's anatomy and function are interconnected to all
human endeavours, including learning, thinking and moving (Roser & Gazzaniga,
2004). Perception has been shown to be intimately linked to culture. Nisbeft and
Masuda (2003) showed that cognitive differences exist in how East Asians
and Westerners. Additionally, this is expressed in commonly used phrases which
influence how we conceptualize ideas. Language usage is indicative of the
close association between understanding. experiences and brain development
(Doidge, 2007), How humans move is how humans learn is how humans experience.
Implications for the Science Classroom
How then can we as teachers of Science incorporate these research findings
into our classroom practice to enhance our students' learning experiences?
listed below are a few possible ideas that can readily be implemented with
science hands-on activities. These suggestions are not necessarily new to
the practise of science teaching, but they are those practices that have
been shown to enhance learning:
• Find out what students know before the lesson sequence begins, especially
to identify any misunderstandings they might have and then attempt to address
these through cooperative learning group science activities.
• Foster conversations among the students that involve asking and responding
to good, thought provoking questions, set up situations where the students
can play the devil's advocate. As well, you could write a different question
on a slip of paper for each science activity group. The group discusses it
and then presents their response to the class. Other students would then be
invited to agree or disagree with the response.
• Require students to manipulate objects in usual and unusual ways and to
collect this information as part of their investigation. Perhaps include the
students' ideas on how the equipment should be arranged and used, and let
them try their own ideas rather than giving them a pre-determined diagram
or procedure.
• Attempt to include lessons in which exploration is promoted. When safe
and appropriate, encourage students to 'play' with the materials to help
them identify properties (or limitations) of the objects for themselves. Think
of other ways in which we could see (or imagine) what would happen If the
objects were used differently.
Summary
All three of these factors, cooperative learning, object manipulation and
embodiment, contribute to the underlying efficacy of hands-on activities
in science education. New ideas about how neural networks interact and Integrate
the totality of human experiences in the gaining of knowledge call for teachers
to plan for the learning experience as a whole, rather than as smaller parts.
Teachers of Science have evolved a powerful teaching strategy, the hands-on
activity, which characterizes this more holistic model
of learning. Typical hands-on activities incorporate dialogue through cooperative
group work, the manipulation of objects and the collection of embodied sensory
inputs in conjunction with the neurobiology and aesthetics of the mind,
all of which create opportunities for students to make meaning of the natural
world. Further analysis of hands-on science group work may result in a better
understanding of how teachers con sustain engagement and learning among
our students. Science educators should recognize their contribution towards
enhanced teaming through the implementation of the hands-on strategy. Becoming
explicitly aware of factors that characterize hands-on teaching and their
potential to cause student learning, teachers of Science Con make explicit
decisions that enhance and strengthen such learning opportunities. These
factors, along with teachers' observations of students' actions in information
collection and processing, allow teachers of Science to make meaning of their
pedagogy and to design even more productive learning activities within which
our students can engage in Science.
(1) Comment by Angelo Maravita, a cognitive neuroscientist
at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy on study published in Current
Biology 19 (12). This study provided direct evidence that using tools changes
the way in which the brain detects our body parts. Downloaded on 23 June
2009, from http://www.the scientist.com.blog.print/5577 1.. This entry was
posted on 22 June 2009.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the fruitful discussions and helpful suggestions
of my colleagues in the writing of this paper. 1 am especially grateful to
Penny Andersen, Noleine Fitzallen, Karin Oerlemans and Jane Watson. Any errors,
however, remain my own.
References
Bennett. W. (1986). What Works?: Research About Teaching and Learning. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Ben-Zvi, R., Holistein, A., Samuel D., & Kempa, R. F. (1977). Modes
of instruction in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
14 (5), 431-439.
Booler, J. (2008). What's Math Got to Do with It? Helping children learn
to love their least favourite subject - and why it's important for America.
New York, NY: Viking.
Bredderman. T. (1983). Effects of Activity-based Elementary Science on Student
Outcomes: A Quantitative Synthesis. Review of Educational Research 53 (4).
449-518.
Doldge, N. (2007). The Brain that Changes Itself. Melbourne: Scrobe.
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T, E., Glass, G. V., & Gamos, W. S. (1993).
Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional
interventions from reading education and science Education. Reading Research
Quarterly, 28 (2), 117-155.
Hackling, M. K., & Prain. V. (2005). Primary Connections Stage 2 Trial.
Research Report October 2005. Australian Academy of Science: DEST.
Harlen, W., & Qualter, A (2009), The Teaching of Science in Primary
Schools, (5th Ed), London: Routledge.
Hottie, J. A. C., (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses
relating to achievement. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
Kipnis, M. & Hofstein, A. (2005). Studying the inquiry laboratory
in high school chemistry. Paper presented at the European Science Education
Research Association Conference, Barcelona, Spain.
Hutt, C. (1981). Toward a taxonomy and conceptual model of play. In H. I.
Day (Ed.) Advances in intrinsic motivation and aesthetics (pp. 251-298), New
York: Academic Press.
Johnson, M. (2008). Meaning and the body, New Scientist, 197, 46-47.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood,
New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
Lunetto, V. N., Hofstein. A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and Teaching
in the School Science
Laboratory: An Analysis of Research, Theory and Practice.
In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science
Education (pp. 393-44 ). Mahwah. N. J.: Lawrence Eribaum.
Nay, M. A., & Associates (1971). A Process Approach to Teaching Science.
Science Education 55 (2), 197-207.
Nisbett, R. E., & Mosuda, T. (2003). Culture and Point of View. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 100 (19), 11163-11170.
Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student Interest Generated During Inquiry Skills Lesson.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (2), 147-165.
Roser, M. A., & Gassaniga, M. S. (2004). Automatic Brains - Interpretative
Minds. Current Directions In Psychological Science 13 (2), 56-59.
Rowe, S. (2002). The role of objects in active, distributed meaning-making.
In Scott Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums
(pp. 19-35). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Eribaum.
Spellman, B. A., & Willingham, D. T. (2005). Current Directions in Cognitive
Science. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson.
Strick, P., Dum, R. P., & Fiez. J. A. (2009). Cerebellum and Non-motor
Function. Annual Review of Neuroscience 32, 413-434.
Treagust, D. (2007). General Instructional Methods and Strategies. In S.
K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education
(pp. 373-391). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Eribaum.
Walberg, H. J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H. C. Waxman & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 75-104).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchen.
Werstch, J. V. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach
to mind. In Luis C. Moll (Ed.)
Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications
and Applications of Socio-historical Psychology (pp. 111-126). Cambridge,
UK: University of Cambridge Press.
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don't students like school? San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
About the author:
Dr Satterthwait has been a science teacher educator since 1991 and has a
passion for 'spreading the word' of Science as a way of making sense of the
natural world.
Topic 2.1 What
makes an activity scientific?
Based on UNESCO source book for science in the primary school by Wynne Harlen
and Jos Elst-geest
A checklist for reviewing activities
The following questions can be applied to any practical activity.
1. Handling and using objects and materials?
2. Observing events and materials closely and carefully?
3. Using senses other than sight?
4. Trying different things with the materials to see what happened?
5. Sorting and grouping the materials according to their similarities and
differences?
6. Discussing what was being done?
7. Making some kind of record of what was being done?
8. Communicating to others what was done and found?
9. Comparing what was found with what others found?
10. Being busy and absorbed in the activities for most of the time?
11. Raising questions about the materials and the investigation?
12. Puzzling over something that was found?
The answer is probably 'yes' to most, whichever activity you had in mind.
This means that you had experience of observing and manipulating materials,
discussing and communicating about what you were doing and trying to understand
what was found. However, these things happen in many practical activities that are not necessarily
scientific. Answering 'yes' to most of these questions shows that there was
potential for scientific activity in what was experienced and to evaluate
whether or not the potential was realized to some extent probing further
is necessary.
So far the questions refer to processes of observation and communication
and attitudes that are common to many practical activities. These processes
and attitudes are desirable, and necessary, for scientific activity but
they are not specific to it. To identify more specific aspects, those
that distinguish scientific activity from other activity, other questions
need to be posed.
Ask yourself whether at some point in the activity you were involved in:
13. Raising a question that could be answered by further investigation?
14. Suggesting a hypothesis to explain something?
15. Devising a test about the question being investigated or to another
question arising during the investigation?
16. Identifying and controlling variables that had to be kept the same for
a fair test?
17. Deciding what was to be compared or measured?
18. Attempting to make measurements using appropriate instruments?
19. Taking steps to refine observations using instruments where necessary?
20. Applying scientific knowledge or ideas?
21. Recording findings in a table, graph, bar chart or in another systematic
way?
22. Seeking patterns or regularities in the results?
23. Drawing conclusions based on the evidence?
24. Comparing what was found with earlier ideas?
25. justifying the conclusions by reference to the evidence?
26. Repeating or checking results?
27. Recognizing sources of error or uncertainty in the results?
28. Trying, or at least discussing, different approaches to the investigation
or to part of it?
These further questions show some aspects that are characteristic of scientific
inquiry. They go further than the previous list by asking about how the
materials were manipulated, rather than just whether they were handled.
What reasons there were for doing various things? How systematic and controlled
was the investigation? Were steps were taken to obtain precise and reproducible
results? Were scientific ideas and knowledge were being used and advanced?.
Using the check-list for children's activities
Now look back on the activity or activities you have carried out with children
and ask questions 1 to 12 in relation to what the children did. It is quite
possible that you did not find so many "yes's" as you did for your own activity.
If this is the first time the children have been given an opportunity to
work with materials, then quite a few "no's" would not be very surprising.
An important purpose of using the check-list is to diagnose problems and
improve learning opportunities.
The following suggestions about
possible reasons for a few 'noes' may help:
1. What was happening: Children not handling materials
Possible reasons: Were there enough materials? Did the children realize
that they could touch and use them?
2. What was happening: Very restricted observing:
Possible reasons: Were the children really interested in the problem given?
Were they distracted by something else going on?
3. What was happening: Few questions raised:
Possible reasons: Was more time needed for children to become absorbed and
to realize what sorts of things they can find out through their own actions?
4. What was happening: Not much discussion:
Possible reasons: Were they used to sitting quietly in class and being told
most things? Several of these problems require more time to be spent in practical activity
and for children to be encouraged to use their own ideas. It helps, however,
if the investigation is introduced in a way which motivates and interests
them. It can be related to a real problem, e.g. the importance of using
safe fabrics
for babies' clothes. It is very helpful to have an area of the class where
a few things can be put for children to observe, play with and wonder about
in their free moments. The teacher can encourage children to bring in items
for this collection and can add to it materials and objects which set the
scene for topics to come. The aspects represented in questions 13 to 28
will not all be found in every activity, but they should become increasingly
common in children's experience as they become more capable of scientific
thinking and inquiry. It should not be a matter for surprise or dismay if
rather few of the answers to questions 13 to 28 were 'yes' in relation to
children's first attempts at scientific investigation. There are no quick
answers that will change everything at a stroke; indeed the whole purpose
of this book is to help in this matter.
Purposes of the check-list
The intention behind
suggesting the check-list as we have just done is not to pass judgement on
an activity or experience but rather to diagnose what aspects of scientific
activity are present and what require to be developed. There are several
other uses for the list and we will refer to it often in later discussion.
Some examples of other uses follow:
In relation to any activity undertaken by children it can be the basis for
review and helping to answer the question 'To what extent is this activity
'. In general the more "yes's" the more chance for learning in science to
be taking place. Where science is part of integrated studies or topic-based, it is all too
easy for it to remain at the level of 'look and tell' or even for activities
such as reading about science to be mistaken for scientific activity. Scanning
the work carried out by the children in terms of the check-list will indicate
the extent of scientific activity.
In selecting activities, the list can be used whilst mentally scanning what
would be involved when children were carrying them out; it can help in a
decision concerning how worth while activities are in terms of their potential
for learning science. In devising or adapting activities, the items indicate the sort of opportunities
that have to be planned for inclusion in classroom work.
Selecting and adapting activities
In science there is always a dual purpose in any activity: the development
of children's scientific skills and attitudes, and the development of their
scientific ideas. Since skills can be used on any subject matter, they are
not a basis for selecting subject matter. The choice of content depends
on the ideas or concepts that are to be developed. The particular selection
of concepts is often determined by the syllabus to be followed.
Although syllabuses vary, there is a core of ideas which are widely accepted
as basic and
always included. Concepts about air are among these, so we
take an example from this area. First, carry out this activity which involves making a parachute. It is
presented as it appeared on a worksheet for children.
Parachute lesson
1. Cut a 35 cm square from sturdy plastic.
2. Cut four pieces of string 35 cm long.
3. Securely tape or tie a string to each corner of the plastic.
4. Tie the free ends of the four strings together in a knot. Be sure the
strings are all the same length.
5. Tie a single string about 15 cm long the knot.
6. Add a weight, e.g. a metal washer, to the free end of the string.
7. Pull the parachute up in the centre. Squeeze the plastic to make it as
flat as possible.
8. Fold the parachute twice.
9. Wrap the string loosely around the plastic.
10. Throw the parachute up into the air or from a veranda or drop it from
a height
Results
The parachute opens and slowly carries the weight to the ground. Why? The
weight fails first, unwinding the string because the parachuted, being larger,
is held back by the air. The air fills the plastic, down the rate of descent;
if the weight fails too quickly a object needs to be used.
Now apply the items of the check-list to what you did. How many items did you tick?
The exact number will depend to some extent on the context in which
rig, but it is probably four or five from items 1 to 12 and none the list.
It is useful to think why this is so - why is the activity in opportunities
for learning?
The instructions are necessary because the observations cannot be made to
the point of having a 'working' parachute, but from then information given
deters discussion and recording and prevents from using their own ideas
because the 'right' explanation is no opportunity to try different variations
of the design which may help in the understanding of the phenomenon. A potentially
rich learning experience is narrowed to one particular idea. Instead, it
could be the starting point for discussing gravity, balanced and unbalanced
forces, speed and acceleration, air resistance and the properties of different
materials. How can the activity be modified to make it a potentially greater learning
experience? Here is a suggestion. It starts in the same way as before. Thereafter
the questions- and suggestions might be introduced orally by the teacher
rather than on a worksheet. But here they have to be written down.
Parachute lesson
Steps 1. To 10.
What happens? Does everyone's parachute do the same? What is the same about
the way all the parachutes fall? What is different? Why do you think that
is? If you throw up a weight not attached to a parachute, does it fall as quickly
as the one attached to the
parachute?
Try it.
Discuss with others in your group why this might be.
Do you think that if the parachute is bigger, or smaller, it will make a
difference?
Decide how you will compare how quickly different parachutes fall. Keep
a record of how quickly the different sizes fall. Try each one several times.
Look at your results and at what other groups have found. Do you see any
patterns (one thing appearing
to be related to another) in the results? What about other shapes? Some have holes in them. Some are made of different
materials.
Try some of these and see how well the parachutes fall.
Plan your investigation before you start. Think carefully about what you
mean by how well the parachute falls. Is speed the only consideration?.
Think what parachutes are usually used for. How will you measure this? How
will you make sure that the investigation is 'fair', i.e. if you are investigating
different materials, that any differences are due only to the material.
Report what you have found to other groups. After listening to what they
have done, can you think of how you might have improved your plan to obtain
more accurate results? Put your heads and your results together and suggest
how to make a parachute which falls very slowly
but goes straight down without swaying sideways.
What else might make a difference to the parachute's fall? Think about different
weather conditions and find out how your parachutes would behave in
wind or rain.
Try out any other ideas that you have.
Now use the check-list in relation to these revised parachute activities.
It will probably be found that a very large proportion of the questions
can be answered with a 'yes'. This analysis should answer the objection
that the time taken for the revised activities is so much longer than for
the original. The point is that the learning taking place is also very much
greater. More wet, several activities of the original type will never provide
opportunities for the kind of experiences required for learning science.
A change in quality is needed, not more of the same. The learning time for
activities of the revised kind is not more but probably less when several
such experiences are considered, because (a) many learning objectives are
being met at the same time (b) what is learned in terms of knowledge is learned
through exploration and testing in practice - it is supported by evidence
from real things and so is with understanding. Of course, because fewer of these kinds of activities can be encountered
in time, it means that they have to be carefully selected to provide maximum
learning opportunity.
Topic 2.2 Experimental investigation
Summary.
Hypothesis based inquiry
Inquiry process
Define the question.
Gather information and resources.
Form hypothesis.
Perform experiment and collect data.
Analyse data.
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new
hypotheses.
Publish/present results.
Set down the topic being investigated and the objectives for studying the
topic.
Establish and refine the hypothesis as a statement or question.
Gather and analyse data relevant to the hypothesis.
Synthesize and evaluate data relevant to the hypothesis.
Confirm or reject the hypothesis and establish generalizations or conclusions.
Determine the best way to present the outcomes of the data gathering, testing
and conclusions.
If the hypothesis is rejected, reflect on possible modifications.
Decide on the research issue:
Identify the topic or issue
Locate a range of sources
Frame a research question or hypothesis and select the research techniques.
Conduct the research:
Gather data, collect evidence
Analyse and evaluate evidence
Produce findings.
Make judgements:
Make decisions or draw conclusions
Evaluate and justify.
Report on an experimental investigation that requires
development of experimental procedures including the collection of
first-hand data that you can interpret and analyse.
Phase 1 - Planning and experimenting
1. State the problem you are investigating. Choose a topic that has a dependent
variable that can be quantitatively measured. Discuss the proposed problem
in class before continuing further.
2. Gather relevant background information on the topic from appropriate
sources, e.g. information on the product packaging, company websites, advertisements
and consumer websites. Include copies of this information (secondary data
sources) in the Appendix 2.
3. Choose a particular aspect of the topic to investigate and state the
purpose of the investigation.
4. Develop a hypothesis.
5. Determine the independent variable and state how it will change in the
investigation.
6. Determine the dependent variable and explain how it will be measured.
7. List the variables that may affect the investigation and explain how
they will be controlled to make a fair test.
8. List the equipment you will need for the investigation.
9. Describe the experimental procedure using a step-by-step outline. It
must be detailed enough to allow others to repeat the experiment. It should
show that the variables have been controlled to make a fair test and that
the accuracy of the data gathered has been ensured.
10. Draw a blank data table to record the first hand data you will gather
from the investigation.
11. Explain how the safety risks will be managed in the experimental procedure.
(The method and safety procedures must be approved by the teacher before
any experimenting is undertaken.)
12. Get teacher approval before continuing with the investigation.
13. Conduct some preliminary trials to determine if there are any problems
with the experimental procedure. Discuss any modifications that were necessary
to address these problems.
14. Carry out the investigation, collect the first hand data and record
it in the data table.
Phase 2 - Report
Communicate the findings by preparing a written report. Use the following
report format and checklist to make sure to include the required information.
Report format and checklist
15. Title Page (Name, Partners, Teacher, Grade, Subject, Due date, Topic,
Clip art or pictures)
16. Table of Contents
17. Introduction
17.1 Statement of problem, why is it relevant and important.
17.2 Background information / Research on the topic (include in-text referencing)
18. Aim
18.1 Purpose of the investigation
18.2 Hypothesis
19. Materials and method
19.1 List of all equipment.
19.2 Step-by-step outline of how the investigation was conducted
19.3 Photographs, pictures or diagrams of experimental procedures
20. Results
20.1 Organization of first hand data, e.g. tables and graphs
20.2 All tables and graphs have titles and are labelled (e.g. Table 1, Figure
1)
21. Discussion
21.1 Start with a statement of what the results indicate about the answer
to the problem you are investigating.
21.1 Compare the results with the hypothesis.
21.2 Link the results with the background information and research related
to the topic (include in-text referencing).
21.3 Explain any weaknesses in the experimental procedures or difficulties
in measurement. Discuss sources of error: experimental technique, equipment,
limitation of reading, variability in outcome.
21.4 Explain how you could improve the investigation to reduce error.
21.5 State any further investigations suggested by the results.
22. Conclusion
22.1 State the findings by relating the results to the aim.
22.2 State whether the data supported the hypothesis or rejected it, i.e.
whether you accept or reject the hypothesis. Some scientists set out deliberately
to reject their hypothesis.
23. Bibliography
24. Acknowledgements
List the people who helped you and how they helped you.
25. Appendix 1: Phase 1: Planning & Experimenting
26. Appendix 2: Copies of secondary data sources used to provide background
information