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!

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

More deep sea videos about octopus and squid

Okay... if people are going to say that they are using my blog I'll just post more video links... about octopi!!! Once again, try playing the video at least once without the sound for the children to explore and talk about what they can see and then play the video! I also like the idea of children thinking about what the scientists are saying -is it similar to their own chatter? Does it sound particularly 'sciency'? 

http://www.nautiluslive.org/video/2016/08/12/googly-eyed-stubby-squid
I'm quite intrigued that the first link has one scientist wanting to make the poor creature move (and it's not really an octopus...). I also think it's interesting listening to their classification -It's this because of this...

http://www.nautiluslive.org/video/2016/06/30/adorable-flapjack-octopus
In this video, the scientists talk about the size of the creatures -and the red laser dots are hard to see (they're at the top of the video!). The way it swims is really beautiful (and very unscientific term!)

This one is truly fantastic too! http://www.nautiluslive.org/video/2014/06/27/visit-rare-vampire-squid

And yes way more... look yourself! These are all part of a mission on right now (I've been watching the live feed too). You can find photos and videos here: http://www.nautiluslive.org/photos-videos

Why not try to get the children doing their observations first -what can they see and then what do they think about that... Rather than I see an octopus... (which it might not be!), I see long legs that I think might be tentacles. I can also see a big oval head. These clues make me think it might be an octopus or a squid.

A quick post before heading down to lovely Napier for a couple of days visiting schools...
One of our team, Margaret Giroux posted a couple of emails a child had shown her (the capability of Engaged in Science happening!). I watched them because the octopus is one of my favourite sea creatures -they just amaze me. The thing that really interested me was the fact I wanted to watch another video, and then another and then I had a question to look up...
These videos are a great way to develop awe and wonder and in a two to three minute stretch! What if children shared a video that they were interested in -It does make me wonder if there's a facebook-type website or program that students could use Hey, watch this video about the mimic octopus! I think padlet.com could work but there might be better ones out there.
As a teacher, could you post links, comments and questions? Is this an opportunity for students to "explore how science itself works"? Learning about the way scientists explore and find answers to questions they have is relevant to the Nature of Science in the NZC!
I do like the idea of children watching the video initially without the sound on so they can grow questions and excitement and then perhaps watch it again with the sound on (or perhaps in their own time?). Could the videos be used as a starter for a reading article, web page or for writing? The idea of using science for literacy is really important and an authentic context!
And finally it will develop awe and curiosity which I think is a bit of the essence of science!

Anyway a couple of links from Margaret:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-LTWFnGmeg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os6HD-sCRn8

have a great week!

Paul

I wrote this as part of a blog post for one of the clusters I work with and thought it might be interesting for others...

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/63703977/5/stock-photo-63703977-rubber-duck-bathing-on-puddle-in-the-nature.jpg

I was excited by the discussions during the workshop around the Use Evidence capability and it's difference to the Gather and Interpret Data capability. As we said, all the capabilities do tend to float around together with no definitive line between them but we can look for certain things. To use a bit of an example shared yesterday (and I've changed it a bit so no copyright breached!)... We've had a lot of rain in Te Aroha and the front yard is gaining it's own water feature with birdlife... "I'm thinking it's probably because the ground can not drain away that much water -I've dug some gardens and know that in some places it's all clay." To me (and this is my interpretation!), this is not really an explanation but more of an inference (the "Interpret" bit of the first capabilities). Observation: puddles of water on my front lawn, ducks swimming, seeing lots of rain. Inference: water's not draining away perhaps because the soil is clay (which I've seen when I've dug in other places. To make this an explanation I think I would need to do a bit more investigating -how do I know the soild where the puddles are is clay? How do I know that Te Aroha clay doesn't drain the water? I think I need more actual evidence rather than basing my explanation solely on my inferences (since an explanation has to be based on evidence!). So I'm going to dig up some samples from my front lawn and put some of this soil in perhaps a bottle with the bottom cut off, and then pour similar amounts of water as I have got in rainfall over and measure the drainage as well as observe what happens at the top. I might notice that the water actually soaks into the soil and only a little drains out. So then I'm going to pour more water on and monitor. I'll also check the actual soil -what type is it... is it clay? how do I know? From this I can now build up my Explanation: (and again I'm making this up as an example!) I noticed all the puddles and inferred it might be the soil type and too much rain to drain away. After I did an investigation, I noticed that when I poured water onto a sample of my front lawn, it could drain 25% but the other 75% stayed in the soil overnight before draining away over three days. When I poured another rainfall amount on, this water couldn't soak into the soil because of the existing water so pooled on top. From this I think my inferences were right -there was too much rain and because of my front lawn, water takes a long time to drain through it so a lot will just make puddles on the top (for the ducks!).

I could then critique -how did I pour the water on? Was it at the same rate as rainfall? Was my sample of the front lawn big enough? How many samples did I dig up? How many times did I do the experiment? 

I could also use the Interpret Representations capability by writing up my findings, sharing how I carried out my experiment, draw a diagram of my bottle drainer and then perhaps also a picture of my front lawn as a cross section showing how the water drains (my own little water cycle!).

So what do you think of this example? Questions? Thoughts? Wonderings?

A quick blog post... I try to do just one a week but this was such a great find I wanted to share it! I was down in Gisborne and found the New Entrants using these magnifying glasses...

The magnifying glasses can record student observations and then play them back! The two little silver buttons are the switch to turn on and off the recording or play back and aren't actually a button, just a contact so no working bits to break! That white rectangle bit are little slips of waxed paper you can use a whiteboard felt on! I think these are just fantastic -and I'm not sponsored by the company that sells them at all! I was told they are from Sitech Systems (got the link too: https://www.sitech.co.nz/product_details/c/280/p/840)
We're wanting to know what children are noticing and how they're noticing so would make a great way to hear their thoughts. I don't think you can transfer them off though. If you had a game with children making as many noticings as they could about an object, I guess you could play them all back to see who comes up with the most! You can just see a smaller circle on the lens which magnifies greater. And they seemed very robust!
The other item the kids were using were these clips which were similar too -I could imagine children looking at a photo of an object, etc and recording their noticings and ideas.

I don't know much more about them -I don't think they record multiple voices, just one at a time and I assume they run with a couple of batteries!

Paul

I heard about this one in the weekend and it quite intrigued me... I've put in a couple of links with the first one being a good introduction for the children.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/28/12310762/mysterious-purple-orb-nautlius
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/30/submarine-scientists-crab-mysterious-glowing-purple-orb

Play the video  and a have a listen to the scientists discussing what they can see as well as their description of it. I really like how they try to describe the purple orb as well as how they are going to grab the orb. It is funny that they use those dreaded metaphors and similes!
Once it has been sucked up, they talk a bit more about what it might be and one questions another's guess about would it be that easy to identify? What might the scientists do to try and identify this creature? What might they be looking for? What patterns (comparing to other creatures) as well as structures (organs, etc) would they look for?
The Guardian link has a bit more detail and what the creature looks like as well as what it might be. I won't give away the surprise but some of the more  able readers might be able to read the whole article.

As I watched the video, I did wonder why none of the scientists were concerned about sucking up this creature -what if it was the only one of its kind? Were they comfortable that their lab had the right environment to house the organism? Will they put it back?

I like this kind of science news article -I'm thinking about turning it into a newsboard, just for a quick watch and discussion. It might catch some students who want to find out a bit more which I always like -that's the last capability Engaged in Science where children are self-engaged. I also like this one because it enables children to hear scientists chatting -they seem to think the same as us... In fact wouldn't it be interesting to play the video with no sound to hear what we are thinking, talk about that and then play the video again with the sound up... Were their conversations similar to ours? I think they would be quite similar apart from the extra knowledge that the scientists have about deep sea creatures!

Have fun!