Monday, 5 December 2016

A bit of a mix...

Just a quick blog before finishing for the year. It's been a fabulous one working with some schools in their second year of PLD with me, some brand new schools and two great clusters in Hamilton and Rotorua which has worked really well -one cluster will continue on next year. I've also had the chance to do a few one-off workshops around the place -lots of fun with lots of positive feedback...
Next year, with the changes to PLD, it's all very interesting! I have a couple of CoLs to work with, a few schools wanting some workshops and hopefully lots more opportunities to support schools with science PLD. The latest TIMSS results show that our Y5 children are improving which is fantastic! Although the blog site is not for advertising, do get in touch if you think I could help your school with teaching science.

Righto... onto a few quick vignettes for our students. I just thought I'd post a few activity ideas that might stimulate some thinking -even at this stage of the year! I like the idea of series of science lessons but I also like the idea of short one offs too. Something that will still encourage children to think like scientists...

This first one popped up on the Hamilton Astronomical Society facebook page and instantly had lots of comments on how this isn't actually night turning into day but the other way around. I thought this would be an interesting one for children to try to prove. How do we know which is right? How could we check? This is a good one in terms of 'let's ask Google' but then how can we teachers be sure the children really do understand. I was working with a class a couple of weeks ago and at the end asked the children to draw a diagram showing their understanding. Even though the children had explored for about ten to fifteen minutes, it was curious how many didn't really get the concept yet (which of course is perfectly fine as we can then have some follow on lessons!). We can hear or read the understanding but then showing this in a different way can enforce this new understanding. I like the above example because you could do it on a page, with a couple of balls and a torch... even with interpretive dance!


Yes, another one off the internet... Is he right? And if you like this one, head back a couple of posts to find some other ideas as to why the dinosaurs became extinct. And how can we 'prove' what happened? In the sense of inference vs explanation, what kind of proof do we need for our ideas to become an explanation? What would the above letter need, to prove that this is what happened? I wonder what other ideas are out there that can be misunderstood? When a group of us visited GNS in Taupo (and I recommend a tour of the place), one of the scientists talked about how much water is underground and how old this water is (hundreds if not thousands of years old if I remember correctly)... but I don't ever remember seeing this on a water cycle diagram!

Last one... just a photo I really like! According to the picture it's a dalmatian pelican from Europe and the largest pelican breed. I used to really like pelicans until I saw an awful TV programme of them eating other birds' chicks live... so I've sort of gone off them! Anyway, a neat picture for what do you notice!

Do have a lovely Christmas break and do stay in touch! 

Paul


Thursday, 17 November 2016

Making lemonade from lemonades

We have a lovely lemonade tree out the back which goes mad with fruit, particularly at this time of the year -which reminds me that there's a great lesson around observations and lemons (http://static.nsta.org/files/sc0802_25.pdf or https://www.nsta.org/elementaryschool/connections/200802MinogueConnection.pdf without the reading)... Anyway, normally we're busy giving away as many of the lemonades as we can -the kids in my class used to love them but this year we've been a bit busy ignoring the fruit and so got a surprise when a few kids turned up at the door asking if they could have some lemons. Of course we said yes, and then found this beauty as the boys were picking "for a feed"!


I thought they'd be great for a quick observation... what has happened here? Is it one lemon or two? What would be there reasons for choosing either -especially if you only showed the first picture -there's only one connection to the tree (the "peduncle extremity" according to Saint Google and http://www.speciale.it/english/citrusfruit.html... I'm always amazed at the level of vocabulary that's out there for those who are experts in that particular field) but if you look at the other photos there are clearly two ends!

I did think that there's a conversation here about twins -identical and fraternal but that might be a bit deep! However in our science 'quickie', could children attempt to draw a cross-section of what they think this lemonade might look like? As always, I have a few thoughts about this (!) -how are they drawing the cross-section? How do they label and describe parts? Children might not know the different parts in specifics but should know "peel", "flesh", "seeds" and perhaps "segments" (although I do wonder about showing them a picture to use a starter with some of the simple names). 
Once they've had a go, you can show them my photos of the interior. I was actually surprised how much 'space' or gaps there was in the fruit -I thought it would be full of flesh but just mutated a little.



"Engaged in Science" certainly was happening in my house -and what's really interesting was it was my wife who was the curious one! And the lemonade was consumed happily -but not by me... yuck!

Of course, giving children some lemons to look at rather than one on a slide is always better... use magnifying glasses to look at the skin, the layers of skin, the segments, inside a seed, etc... lots to talk about, to taste, to smell, to generate questions (which is what the lemon of a lesson does).

As always, have a great day! Thanks to those of you who leave a comment -nice to know people do read these!
Paul


Sunday, 13 November 2016

Engaging Children in Science

the originator: Mike Senator (image: today.com)

I was down in lovely Otorohanga last week doing some science with the students there. Before I started with the seniors, a couple of boys were trying to toss their water bottle up in the air and then landing right way up on the desk. Apparently, it's a "thing": (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bottle-flipping-trick-videos-youtube-banned-in-schools-a7346131.html), and I've seen kids doing this in my home town of Te Aroha as well. The aim is to toss a bottle with some water in up in the air and have it land standing upright.
Anyway, I wondered if this is something that could have some science applied to it and the flip can! I found this article online with the science of fluid dynamics attributed http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bottle-flipping-trick-videos-youtube-banned-in-schools-a7346131.html, as well as another article slightly more tongue in cheek -http://www.sciencealert.com/the-internet-just-lost-is-mind-over-this-teen-flipping-a-water-bottle-like-a-pro.
So could children work out what's going on? Could they discover the best way of holding the bottle (holding the cap seems to be best)? How much water is best? Could they film the flip to see what the water does (might need to be coloured?)? Is there a better height to be to flip or toss the bottle both for the flipping person and the surface the bottle is being flipped onto? I love thinking like this -grabbing 'stuff' that is out there and thinking about the science... because I know this is what scientists do as well! And having found a few websites out there with some explanations, I do feel my theories are affirmed! Mind you, I'm also aware that this could start the craze at your school!
Besides all the lovely physics happening here, there's lots for the science capabilities too...
Gather and Interpret Data: what are children noticing? Can they film the toss? Infer/Think about what's happening as they try different amounts of liquids (in fact would different liquids make a difference?), different holds, etc. How will they record their observations? Will they use a table or chart? There's lots of variables going on here -how will they try to keep the changes to a minimum, and why is that important?
Use Evidence, Critique Evidence: Can children try to explain why this works? I'm not expecting the physics answers with all the vocab but students may be able to see what the water is doing in the bottle. Apparently a third of the bottle filled with water is best and if it's coloured, children could see clearly what the liquid is doing. There are plenty of apps out there to slow film down for them to see how the water affects the rotation. When I talk with teachers about this kind of science, they are keen for the children to 'know the answers' and I know I'm very much the same! Sometimes the issue with letting the children loose on Google means them finding the answers but not understanding the answers. They may even be able to repeat what the website says! By getting them to explore first, they may have a better idea of what the website or video is saying... which leads me to another capability.
Interpret Representations: As students look online, they will find diagrams, charts, visual representations, and video explanations discussing the science. Do they understand? Could they explain how the pictures 'work', for example, this explanation from the links above. There's a lot of information here!

Could children film their own bottle flipping and then see if they can correlate the stages in the explanation with their own toss? Do they agree? I'm a big fan of students sharing their own explanations through drawing a diagram, etc. How will they label the picture? How do they show movement, eg of the water? Once they've drawn their diagram, children should have a better idea of their explanation and feel more confident in writing an explanation (if you wanted students to write).

Of course, you may end up with a pile of children wanting to do this all lunchtime but I guess you could put restrictions on the flip! An idea just popped in my head -does the bottle size matter?

As I was talking about this at home, my niece mentioned people trying to balance softdrink cans in their rims with a little liquid in...

Have fun!
Paul

Monday, 7 November 2016

Engaged in Science

Just a quick note to share something that happened over the weekend. One of the capabilities that I'm particularly interested in seeing 'happening' is the Engaged in Science capability. This is where children are becoming almost independent in their science thinking of the world around them and in particular issues. If we're serious about the essence statement in the NZC, we need to be deliberate in our efforts to creating responsible, critical and informed citizens.
I was at a DoC centre in Nelson last week and they are releasing lots of fantastic resources to support teachers (http://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/conservation-education/) with getting our students engaged in their local environment and doing science stuff! The resources do have the Nature of Science as a part of the planning and it would be simple enough to tag the capabilities alongside.

Anyway, the 'thing'... I was chatting to the hairdresser as she cut my hair and she made mention of the fact the salon seems to always be louder in cool mornings than if it's warm. It got us chatting about this (and if you know me, you would know I was asking lots of questions like "Prove it" and "How do you know that it's louder?"!). We had an observation from the hairdresser and then we were using this observation to think more about this idea. We used prior knowledge about our own memories -that on still days sound does seem to travel further. We also did a bit of science talk as I had read something recently about sound travelling through water very well so was thinking that perhaps a humid day might be better for sound travel... We were musing and discussing and both of us were interested. And those of you who think I'm making this up -the hairdresser then posted this on Facebook!

Rather than getting too deep science-wise, I was wanting to share this as an example of getting science out there. Not just for children but for ourselves as well. Not only is there plenty of science-themed news out there but let's start being inquisitive, curious, wondering... Let's start thinking about what we read... I remember reading something about dogs peeing north and south (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/03/dogs-sense-earths-magnetic-field/) and thought pfft! I take my dog for loads of walks and he's yet to show this natural compass bearing (unless there's something up with Te Aroha, magnetically speaking!) preferring to pee in any direction. However, it did make me want to critique and challenge the finding and that's one of the things science is about... Neither the hairdresser nor I really knew that much about sound travelling but we did have some prior knowledge and a few science ideas. She used good ol' Google to give us some more ideas but I'm sure that she will be monitoring the salon in the future... wanting evidence of her theory!
So get out there and find out stuff! Why do some weeds and flowers grow in clumps? How come the cup 'tings' at different pitches with the spoon after you stir the coffee? Why is a fruit a fruit and a vegetable a vegetable? And why does my toast and jam still fall jam-side down?!? 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dropping-toast-butter-side-down-2253601
And what interests me is that scientists are fascinated with this everyday science just like us! That last one I put in for fun and then thought 'hmmmmm', googled it and found: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2410532/Why-toast-falls-butter-Scientists-finally-uncover-reason--height-table.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttered_toast_phenomenon. Yes, I know the last one is wikipedia but now I want to look up the link to buttered cats! Science is so cool!

Paul

Thursday, 20 October 2016

Challenging what we see

Greetings! I hope you're all having lovely science time in the last term of the year. I've been busy visiting schools sharing ideas about the science capabilities and the Nature of Science.

I came across this lovely image on facebook, the source of all knowledge and wisdom... other than Wikipedia of course... I've seen similar from the "Fake Science" folk (like the Rex wielding shovel) so I'm thinking it's the same folk.
  

I do like these because they quite nicely reflect the first capability about Gathering and Interpreting Data as well as leading nicely onto the second one Using Evidence. Both posters are based on direct observation (the gathering of data) -paleontologists have dug into the ground and found the bones of dinosaurs. Both posters seem to have an explanation for what the scientists have found and here's an easy way to show the difference between an explanation and an inference -if these are explanations then we need to see evidence of the statements. We would need to perhaps find a shovel or claw marks as dinosaurs have dug into the ground looking for something to eat. The first one is more interesting because it would be pretty hard to find evidence that this is true. However we have found evidence to disprove this and I like the idea of getting children not to just prove an explanation but to also disprove them. We have fossil evidence of tissues and skin samples. One of the best is a hadrosaur (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html) so this shows that at least some dinosaurs had skin and internal organs, etc.
Without the evidence, these statements are just inferences based on the "scientist's" observations. We do want to encourage our children to not just collect data, whether it be statistical results from a glider flight, noticings from an object or a video, or measurements from a chemical reaction experiment, but to interpret it -are there patterns in the data?, can you start making assumptions or inferences?, can you surmise that perhaps the spider is doing a courtship dance or waving off a predator by making itself look bigger (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_yYC5r8xMI)? As we use science knowledge or prioir knowledge, we will be inferring... to turn this into an explanation we may need to investigate further, perhaps carry out the experiment again, or plan a new investigation to seek some answers, or watch some more videos of peacock spiders. As we gather direct evidence or proof, we can start creating our explanation!
Image result for peacock spider
The explanations students make may still be wrong, and challenging their thinking and results is all part of the fourth capability Critiquing Evidence: are you sure that what you have decided is the explanation based on this evidence is correct? Could the results be actually showing something quite different? I use the good ol' cellophane fish experiment for this... I put the fish on a child's hand and it should wriggle around. Then we put it in another child's hand where it will again wriggle but may behave a little differently. Children are noticing excitedly and already starting to infer that it may be heat, contact with their skin, etc... These are all inferences until they try to find data... If it's heat, will it work on a hot surface? They usually put the fish on a cold table surface and nothing happens -then a sneaky facilitator suggests breathing on the table to "heat it up" and the fish wriggles confirming their theory. Actually the fish is wriggling because of moisture on the surface it's on -children need to get more evidence rather than believing one source (like wikipedia!).

All these capabilities and even lessons all written up for a variety of levels can be found on the science online TKI site: http://scienceonline.tki.org.nz/Science-capabilities-for-citizenship/Introducing-five-science-capabilities.




Thursday, 1 September 2016

The EV Nautilus


Just a quick one... still on about the EV Nautlius research and came across this video of a Sperm Whale Gathering and possibly! Interpreting Data about the submersible,.. Besides the scientist chatter which, with this one, doesn't really sound that 'sciency', I'm really curious about what students think the whale might be thinking -it's really looking hard at the little submersible!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkBpummjR5I is the link...

Sunday, 28 August 2016

Post #2: citizen science

Two posts in one day!
I'm always reminding everyone to be looking for science news to share in classrooms and there were two that I came across that intrigued me.



The first one is in the vein of the butterfly count and the garden bird survey earlier in the year -the Great Kiwi Bee Count! If you've heard me talking about them, bees are one of my favourite insects! They're one of those insects that you can tell reasonably quickly are important to us (and perhaps even to our survival if you read some websites out there). The article link is here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/83627978/The-Great-Kiwi-Bee-Count-We-need-to-look-after-bees? whilst families can enter the data here (the link is in the article): www.stuff.co.nz/GreatKiwiBeeCount.  
The idea of children taking part in these surveys is a great way to connect them to the work of scientists. When I had a quick look at the data entry site, I was surprised at how many bees there actually are in Aotearoa. Perhaps this is an activity children could do with their parents -which is another thing that I'm into: getting the whole family science wired.
This is a great way to get the children understanding a little about how we do science. Take the students outside to a certain part of the garden and they can all count for 10-15 minutes. Once we're done, everyone can come in and we can collate the data to see if we can find patterns... Do the bees like certain plants or certain colours of plants? Do wasps and bees hang out together? What about bumblebees? In fact, who cares that there are not enough bees? Why do we care? As the children talk, they might start thinking about whether this is enough data to make a statement about bees? In science, we need lots of data! If the children are older, perhaps they could talk about whether our results are reliable? Perhaps it had been a windy day so all the bees had been blown to a certain place? Can we say that bees only like red flowers if there were only red flowers in the garden? Perhaps you could share your own counting that is wildly different which would lead to the need to be honest about what we're surveying. Although I really like bumblebees (even more than honeybees!), I can't pretend there are any at my house -why? Older children might even like to talk about outliers -where ordinarily honey bees are found in this particular location... and although three were seen at a different location to all the others, it might be that they were actually a different bee or perhaps miscounted or there really could be bees there!
I think there are a lot of possibilities for capabilities development -children gathering data, making statements based on the data, critiquing results and then sharing their results, perhaps with a bar graph.
In terms of vocabulary, children will learn about bee names at the least. Perhaps, their curiosity being piqued, they may investigate a bit more about bees -their lives, the hive, parts of a bee, etc...


The other article I read was one about a man reported to have pretty much saved a butterfly species on his own. He didn't receive any support but simply decided to repopulate the California pipevine swallowtail butterfly. The article link is: http://www.odditycentral.com/news/man-single-handedly-repopulates-rare-butterfly-species-in-his-own-backyard.html. It's an interesting article to read and I've included one that might be better for the juniors too: http://www.boredpanda.com/rare-blue-swallowtail-pipevine-butterfly-repopulation-tim-wong/ which would be too hard for the children to read but would be very interesting to discuss and look at all the photos. I wonder if children could compare it to that one constant in the junior science programme -the Monarch butterfly! What's the same? What's different? Could they make up a Venn diagram to show these similarities and differences?
Again, this is following that citizen science idea -imagine your class helping to repopulate a species! There's also the other side to discuss -should we let species become extinct or should we do our best to help them. Creatures like the Monarch butterfly, stick insects and even the regular frog seem to be on the decline -what can we do to help them? Should we? What's their role in the environment? What would happen if there were no caterpillars to eat the swan plants?

Anyway some ideas for the classroom that link our science and literacy together quite nicely!

Gather and Interpret Data...

Gather and Interpret Data...

I was in a workshop and one of the teachers spoke about still wanting to get the difference between the ‘gather’ and the ‘interpret’ of this capability. We sometimes call this “I see, I think” although we do add “I wonder” on the end! I wrote this up as a word doc with pretty pictures and all but thought the test might be interesting for others :-)

To me, the ‘interpret’ is about students starting to think about their observations, drawing on their prior knowledge and science knowledge to make sense of what they can see. Students might watch an experiment, then start to make sense of it à this might lead to some more questions, or trying out the experiment a different way to see if the results are the same or even challenge their thinking –could there be a different explanation for what we’ve seen? In the “Use Evidence” capability, the explanation is deeper and is also based on the evidence seen (whilst inferences are where children can think about what might be happening without any proof). Children are learning about explanations and how to build them, test them and challenge them. From this, children will understand better scientific explanations when they come across them on the web or in a book –do we think the explanation is sound or robust? Building an awareness of what an explanation is helps them interpret them!
An example of this process could be illustrated by a child observing a soda water and raisins experiment. I asked her, as raisins bobbed up and down, what could she see. She talked about seeing raisins on the bottom of the glass, lots of bubbles going up as well as two raisins ‘jumping up and down’. I then asked her “So what do you think is going on?” Her answer was that the raisins were jumping up, getting a breath of air and then sinking back down –just like how she would when she’s in the swimming pool. Besides being a lovely answer, this is a great example of an inference. She tagged some prior knowledge onto what she had observed. However, this could never be the explanation –there’s no evidence that raisins breathe! As it was, we did cut open a raisin to have a look inside but couldn’t find any lungs –so she decided raisins must have gills! For her explanation as to why the raisins were going up and down, we would need clear evidence of raisins needing to breathe –how come some raisins never came up to the surface? Other children inferred it was the bubbles that caused the raisins to go up. It’s an inference until we can prove it.

From the TKI site on Gather and Interpret Data… (http://scienceonline.tki.org.nz/)
“Science knowledge is based on data derived from direct, or indirect, observations of the natural physical world and often includes measuring something. An inference is a conclusion you draw from observations – the meaning you make from observations. Understanding the difference is an important step towards being scientifically literate.”

Science knowledge is based on data derived from direct, or indirect, observations of the natural physical world. We gather data by using our senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell - to make observations. Making careful observations often includes measuring something. Observations are influenced by what you already know. 


This nicely morphs into the Use Evidence capability about making an explanation. It’s also a good example of students critiquing
Interpreting data involves making meaning from observations. A conclusion you draw from observations is called an inference. To help students differentiate between observation and inference, ask:
Is it something we can see, hear, smell, touch, or taste? Is it measurable?
What did you see? (observation); What might that mean? (inference).

To try and ensure their explanations are robust, i.e. that their inferences are valid, scientists do a number of different things, for example:
They ask questions like: “Could there be another explanation for this data?”
They might collect more data, perhaps using a different method. They might also test alternative explanations.
They communicate and debate their ideas with other scientists.

Another example of this could be looking at bird features –their beaks and feet… What do children notice about the different beaks of birds? Could they go out and take some photos (or sketch some of the beaks they can see?). It might be that you use photos on the projector of different birds for children to sketch.
Next children might write down some thinking –why might a duck’s foot be webbed? Why would that be helpful? Children might think about scuba divers with their flippers and how well they can swim so perhaps the webbed feet help the duck swim better (and some children might have even seen ducks swimming). These are inferences because we’re simply making sense of our observations without the need for ‘proof’. Children, as they get older, might like to put a ‘because’ in their sentence too: I think the webbed foot is so the duck can swim better because scuba divers wear them to help them swim stronger and faster. These inferences are the beginning of an explanation although we’ll need data to prove what we’re thinking… The inferences might be wrong and so students might challenge their thinking: I think the kiwi beak is long so he can eat berries that are high up because he’s so small. I’ve seen lots of birds eating the berries in our tree and he wouldn’t be able to reach them. This is an inference based on what the child has seen as well as thinking about the beak. Other children might challenge this inference –do kiwi eat berries like other birds? I thought kiwi eat bugs –I saw it on YouTube! The student might then watch a video of a kiwi searching for food, or read some information about what kiwi might eat and then change their mind… Actually kiwi don’t eat berries on the trees. He uses his beak to push through all the dead leaves on the forest floor looking for bugs to eat. Because his beak is long he can push in a lot deeper. And you can see that this is becoming an explanation: after having seen some footage of kiwi or reading up on the bird, the child now has evidence to back up their explanation! It’s no longer simply an inference of what might be what’s going on based on their own thinking but they have evidence!
Bird feature
What we think they might use the feature for
What we saw on the video


http://etc.usf.edu/
I think the feet are for  swimming like a scuba diver
Yes the duck used its webbed feet to go faster –he spread out his feet underwater like flippers
www.aucklandmuseum.com
I think the beak is long and pointy so it can pick berries that are too high up to reach
The beak is actually so he can search for grubs and worms in the leaf litter





















Sometimes though there might be more than one explanation… I like the panda bear skull because you can look at the skull and infer it’s a carnivorous animal. You might even decide it could be a grizzly bear with those sharp teeth… So my inference is I think it’s a carnivorous animal because it has those sharp teeth in the front. To explain, I may look at some other carnivorous animals, compare their skulls and decide Yes, from the evidence of other skulls, I think this is a meat-eating animal. It has similar teeth at the front and back. From looking at the two skulls, they seem almost identical so I’m thinking this is a bear skull too. Although my explanation is built on all the evidence, in this case, it’s a panda skull which eats bamboo… I might want to do a bit more research, questioning so why does it have teeth like that? Did it used to eat meat?

Panda skull

http://www.educationalbiofacts.com
Grizzly Bear skull

Another good example is on the TKI site. It’s a lesson based around a Building Science Concept resource about changes (http://scienceonline.tki.org.nz/Science-capabilities-for-citizenship/Introducing-five-science-capabilities/Gather-interpret-data/The-Land-Changes). The lesson is about children noticing changes and then thinking about how it has changed and what the effect could be.
What has changed?

How has it changed?

What do we think caused the change?

What is the effect of the change?
The tree
It has grown.
Time and conditions that allow growth
There is a shady place in the playground.

Noticing changes is definitely an observation, how it has changed could be an observation or an inference whilst the third column is an inference with students thinking about their observations whilst the last column could be an observation or an inference. As children infer, it might lead onto further questions and investigations.
It can be really effective to think a bit more about why we are teaching this capability? Why do we want to develop this ‘citizenship idea’? Although it looks like the capability of Gather and Interpret Data is all about processes and skills, it’s really part of a disposition (like the Key Competencies). As these children get older, how would this capability help them? Would it be good for them to learn how to observe closely, about what an inference is, and what makes a good explanation? Would you use these capabilities as a ‘grown up’?

Hope this helps!




Sunday, 21 August 2016

Oceans videos... more!


Deb posted a reply on one of my blog posts (I do like getting comments -makes me feel connected!). She talked about Oceans 180 video challenge (http://ocean180.org/) where scientists attempt to explain their research in three minute videos which were then judged by students. I know this is something that Alan Alda (formerly of the MASH TV series) is passionate about as well. He has set up a foundation for communicating in science and has had competitions for the best explanation about flames.

I watched a couple of the videos (http://ocean180.org/2016-challenge/2016-challenge-finalists/verystickyfish2.html and http://ocean180.org/2016-challenge/2016-challenge-finalists/creative-dolphin.html) on the oceans website and, like my previous links, really like these as they are short and can be used for a warm up or as part of a literacy session for oral language or reading or writing! They could be used to develop question building in students as well. What I also like about these videos is twofold -one, children are learning about how scientists work -their questioning, their thinking and their investigations and two, that scientists wonder like they do... I've quite often come across a science paper investigating something that I'm curious about -M&Ms, coke and Mentos, popcorn...

http://ocean180.org/2016-challenge/2016-challenge-finalists/verystickyfish2.html 

As I watched the videos I was struck by their explanations which is part of the Use Evidence capability... How do scientists explain? How do they investigate? What evidence do they use to explain? Do they have questions about their explanations that they want to look further into? One of the videos talked about the scientists 'believing' something -so what does that mean to children? It really shows the tentative nature of science in action! We think this measures intelligence so we did the test...


http://ocean180.org/2016-challenge/2016-challenge-finalists/creative-dolphin.html 

Could children watch the videos and think about the vocabulary in the video? What specific words were used that were 'science-themed'? Interestingly, I didn't hear the word 'hypothesis' at all! Do the children agree with the findings? What questions do they have?

Both videos also have some ideas around another capability, Interpret Representations -scientists showing some graphics about their research which would be interesting to talk about.

So, with all these videos, what am I thinking about? I really like the idea of science not being just after lunch! If we want to develop good writing skills, we need to develop good vocabulary and discussions. Children talking about these videos and critically thinking is really important too -not just watching and thinking I really like dolphins and he was very cute! but I'm not sure I agree with dolphins being kept like this... I'd like to study a bit more about the research place and see how they treat the dolphins... or even Who cares! Why does it matter if a dolphin's clever or not? I'd much rather see scientists working on a cure for my cold! The idea of little bites appeals to me because it fits nicely into the day and might even hook children to look further themselves (and there's the Engaged in Science capability happening!) growing their own curiosity and wonder!

have a great week...
Paul

Oceans videos... more!


Deb posted a reply on one of my blog posts (I do like getting comments -makes me feel connected!). She talked about Oceans 180 video challenge (http://ocean180.org/) where scientists attempt to explain their research in three minute videos which were then judged by students. I know this is something that Alan Alda (formerly of the MASH TV series) is passionate about as well. He has set up a foundation for communicating in science and has had competitions for the best explanation about flames.

I watched a couple of the videos (http://ocean180.org/2016-challenge/2016-challenge-finalists/verystickyfish2.html and http://ocean180.org/2016-challenge/2016-challenge-finalists/creative-dolphin.html) on the oceans website and, like my previous links, really like these as they are short and can be used for a warm up or as part of a literacy session for oral language or reading or writing! They could be used to develop question building in students as well. What I also like about these videos is twofold -one, children are learning about how scientists work -their questioning, their thinking and their investigations and two, that scientists wonder like they do... I've quite often come across a science paper investigating something that I'm curious about -M&Ms, coke and Mentos, popcorn...

http://ocean180.org/2016-challenge/2016-challenge-finalists/verystickyfish2.html 

As I watched the videos I was struck by their explanations which is part of the Use Evidence capability... How do scientists explain? How do they investigate? What evidence do they use to explain? Do they have questions about their explanations that they want to look further into? One of the videos talked about the scientists 'believing' something -so what does that mean to children? It really shows the tentative nature of science in action! We think this measures intelligence so we did the test...


http://ocean180.org/2016-challenge/2016-challenge-finalists/creative-dolphin.html 

Could children watch the videos and think about the vocabulary in the video? What specific words were used that were 'science-themed'? Interestingly, I didn't hear the word 'hypothesis' at all! Do the children agree with the findings? What questions do they have?

Both videos also have some ideas around another capability, Interpret Representations -scientists showing some graphics about their research which would be interesting to talk about.

So, with all these videos, what am I thinking about? I really like the idea of science not being just after lunch! If we want to develop good writing skills, we need to develop good vocabulary and discussions. Children talking about these videos and critically thinking is really important too -not just watching and thinking I really like dolphins and he was very cute! but I'm not sure I agree with dolphins being kept like this... I'd like to study a bit more about the research place and see how they treat the dolphins... or even Who cares! Why does it matter if a dolphin's clever or not? I'd much rather see scientists working on a cure for my cold! The idea of little bites appeals to me because it fits nicely into the day and might even hook children to look further themselves (and there's the Engaged in Science capability happening!) growing their own curiosity and wonder!

have a great week...
Paul