Text Links: Home Lesson Plans Humor Teacher Inquiry Urban Education Web Wizardry Links All material is my personal opinion, and not that of any other organization. Copyright 2001. Permission is granted for individual teacher use. All rights reserved. Feedback is invited: Email me!

Nov. 26, 1997 Summary of my work this semester In September, we began by using activities from the FOSS Variables kit. The purpose was to establish with the students some basic experimental methods; what is a variable, a control, how do you collect, record and graph data. We spent about a month on this, and I became rather impatient to begin working with the investigation kits I had created. So in October, we launched the kits. The students were engaged, for the most part, but after a number of sessions, they proved unable to resolve their activities into bona fide investigations. They had a very hard time settling on a concrete question they were going to answer, and an even harder time keeping regular records of what they had done. So after a month on the kits, we are backing up a bit, and looking for ways to strengthen the students' ability to ask questions and plan investigations. We are looking at a sequence of activities that will build up these skills, followed by an intensive month of work with kits. The kit work will be modified in two ways. First, the kits will be limited in number, to only four different types of kit. The sheer variety of kits I was using was unwieldy (I was using more than 20 different types of kits). It is very difficult to keep tabs on students doing twenty different things. I think the fact that students are pursuing different investigations within the class will maintain the focus of the teacher on delivering investigation skills to all the different groups. In other words, what the different groups will have in common will not be the content they are investigating, but their need to come up with investigatable questions, or gather data, or use equipment. Interspersed with the time the students are spending on their kits, investigating autonomously, the teacher will deliver instruction addressing the skills described. The second modification will be to the content of the kits themselves. The kits I began with varied widely in depth and quality. The new kits will be stronger. Each will have an initial investigation built in, that will kick off the students' work with the materials. This will allow them to become familiar with the topic, and provide some initial knowledge upon which they can base their investigations. Beyond the initial activity, the kit will contain a variety of other equipment and materials to allow further investigations, to be developed by the students. Last week we did an exciting sequence of activities building on earlier experiences the students had exploring the effect different concentrations of salt water had on floating objects. Students had learned that salt water is denser than fresh water, and alcohol is less dense. The activity we did involved three different colored water solutions. One was fresh water, one had a little salt, and one a lot of salt. The students were given a straw, and asked to make the different colors layer within the straw. To form clear layers, the water must be layered in order of decreasing density. This activity, by itself, is fairly trivial, though engaging. The students succeeded in finding the correct sequence of three colors, and most could relate the result to their previous experience with density. The fun came in the math integration that followed. I gave students a sheet where they were to color in representations of colored layers in straws, representing two, three and then four colors. They were to color all the different sequences possible. With two colors, there are two sequences possible. With three there are six, and with four colors, there are 24 possible orders. Students were able to uncover the pattern underlying this sequence (2 x 1 = 2; 3 x 2 x 1 = 6; 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24) and then move on to predict the possible sequences with five colors. We then returned to the real challenge, introducing a fourth color, of a distinct density, and students had to experiment to determine the new sequence. Students worked with the sheets they had created showing all possible combinations, their goal being to conduct as few tests as possible, using their deductive powers to eliminate some sequences without even testing them. This week we returned to the central focus of the course: the investigation process. We are planning to do an investigation into dry ice, and I am hoping students will be able to make some clear observations of CO2 gas. However, they have had little experience with gases, and I don't think they are even aware that density is a property held by gases as well as liquids and solids. So I thought we might begin with an investigation into helium, a gas they are somewhat familiar with, and one in which low density is an obvious property. We began with a story I have posted on my web site, Lawn chair Larry Flies!, about a fellow who launched himself into the air using 45 helium weather balloons. The story is rather funny, and set the stage for a thinking exercise. Students were asked to record all they know about helium, and what they wonder about it. In a discussion after this writing was done, they were asked to report back. They came up with nine questions. They were: Why does helium make your voice high? Will helium burn? What will happen if you put a helium balloon in the freezer? Can you breathe helium? How is a helium balloon like a hot air balloon? How long will a balloon last? Do different types of balloons take different lengths of time to lose their helium? Why is a helium tank cold? How many balloons would it take to really fly? The next day, I gave students at each table a sheet with three of these questions on it, with space for them to write what they thought the answer was, and to propose an experiment. I gave the groups about ten or fifteen minutes to confer and come up with experiments, and then, using the overhead, I went through the questions one by one, discussing the proposed experiments. At least two groups had each set of questions, since there were only three sets, so all the students could suggest ideas. But I made the students at the tables with those particular questions the "experts" on those investigations, responsible for recording what the class decided to do. The students were good at coming up with the skeleton of the experiment. They understood that to find out what happens to a balloon when you put in a freezer, well, you can put one in the freezer. But what to do next, I asked. "You monitor it," a student suggested. "How do you monitor it?" I asked. We agreed, with guidance from me, that measurement would be important. I also introduced the idea of a control. In this case, I will suggest we have helium balloons inside and outside the freezer, and air ballons in and out as well. Then we can observe the behavior of both helium and air, and begin to learn about our atmospheric gases as well. Next week I will place before them yet another form for them to use in planning their investigation. It asks them to state their question; hypothesis; experiment design, including materials, procedure and measurement technique; then gives a bit of space for the recording of results and new questions. Before we begin to experiment, they will need to have a clear plan agreed upon by everyone on their team. We will only have helium for about 25 balloons, so they must be careful with their use of materials. I see this as guided inquiry. When I read them the story, and prepared to bring helium to class, I had in mind a rough outline of the investigation we would do. The question of how many balloons it would take to lift a person was a clear one I expected to explore. But I wanted the students to take responsibility for framing the investigation, for two reasons. First of all, I think that if the students are given the role of determining the questions to be explored, their participation becomes much more meaningful, and they get more engaged and excited. Second of all, and even more critically, the students need to learn how to ask good questions. Not all the questions thought of by the students will prove fruitful for our investigations. For example, "Why does helium make your voice change" is not something we can directly investigate. It is valuable for students to begin to distinguish productive investigation questions from ones that are not likely to be productive. Beyond asking the questions, students then are being asked to design the experiments. This is not being done without guidance. I tried that with the kits and found frustration. The design process is a collaborative one, involving first teams of students, then the entire class, with the teacher as facilitator, coach, and Principal Investigator, if you will. It has been suggested recently that the source of a question is irrelevant to the definition of inquiry. 'The question could come from a student, from a teacher, from the curriculum, or from a classical scientific problem. To have inquiry one must have the accumulation of data, leading to the formulation of a model or an explanation that answers the question.' This may suffice as a technical definition of inquiry. I do not feel it is effective pedagogy, however. If we set as one of our goals that students be able to ask questions and act on them to devise investigations, then how can we arrive at this goal without asking the students to do exactly that? It is certainly possible to devise a curriculum which places before students the task of accumulating data in response to stated questions, and asking them to arrive at models or explanations to account for this data. I don't think, for myself, that this represents a fulfilling inquiry. Nor does it represent to me an accurate model of science as practiced by scientists. So I wish to continue to focus on trying to get my students to refine their ability to ask good questions, and use their growing investigative abilities to answer them.