topic01

School Science Lessons
Topic 1 Science, maths and technology, ‘hands-on’ science activities, scientific, experimental investigation
2012-01-27
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 co-operative 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 Notional 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 con 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 schoolchemistry. 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 or curriculum 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.
Prepare to 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