Paleoart and DINOSAURS!!!

I have discovered the world of podcasting and love it! There are a few that I like (and I'm open to more -feel free to suggest!) and on the way back to work from Rotorua, I was listening to an episode from 99% Invisible about 'paleoart' which I found fascinating (as I usually do) as well as a great opportunity for our older children to learn about inference.
I know that's a skill that is taught in reading but can be a bit more difficult to understand in science. The TKI science capabilities website (www.scienceonline.tki.org.nz) talks a bit about the first capability Gather and Interpret Data by talking about the gathering data as directly observable or measurable whilst the interpreting data bit is making meaning of the observation. As soon as children start to explain something, it's usually an inference!
Anyway this week's podcast was about the art of drawing dinosaurs and looked at how they were first drawn which was as big, cumbersome creatures that never moved. In fact one picture I was looking at showed two dinosaurs comatose as well as biting one another!

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/

This has moved on to the current dinosaurs which are very fluid and, as one person said, looking shrink-wrapped with lots of muscles as if they headed off to the gym three times a week. Jurassic Park has sort of followed this model, particularly in the early days.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/

Now people drawing dinosaurs is changing again, and here's the inferences bit... We really have no idea what the dinosaurs really looked like. We do have some fossils with remains of muscles, fat and scales on. We also have fossils with what looks like proto-feathers on. But we don't know whether all dinosaurs had all of these! If you look at modern mammals, there's quite a wide selection even in the same type of animal! So this has given artists leeway to experiment. Here's what a dinosaur may have looked like that lived in the colder regions: 

http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/01/skin-deep-one-skin-fits-all-approach-to.html

I think this is interesting for two reasons. One, it can support children in being a little more critical of dinosaur art... How can the artist be sure it was purple with yellow stripes (which a dinosaur big book that I had in my classroom did!)? How can I be sure it didn't? If I want to infer, can it just be my imagination or does it need to be justified? So what does inference really mean then? Secondly, it can help children really get their head around observation and inference. We can work out that a triceratops had three horns and the shape of it's skeleton. We may also be able to tell how long the tail may have been... well, at least the bones bit! But the rest is inference! It may have had quills on the top of its head. It might have had a bright red frill... Could children look at a picture and a fossil and work out the observation and inference bits?
The podcast and a couple of the articles talk about what we might think modern animals may look like to the future paleontologist -there won't be an elephant trunk fossil, camel hump or the blubber of a whale to show them what these creatures really looked like. In fact how do we know the dinosaurs didn't have a big hump?
I love the picture of swans they draw as I already think of them as violent creatures!

One has speared a tadpole, neither have feathers or wings as they didn't fossilize...
The articles are quite interesting and I think this would make a great reading activity for the children. If I was to do it, I would draw the science out of this... So what are we learning about science? My daughter knows I'm quite the critiquer and has become one herself. Recently, she watched a BBC dinosaur clip and paused it to tell me that the commentator was talking about the behaviour and appearance of the dinosaur as if it was true rather then "We believe that these particular dinosaurs played guitar late at night whilst wearing sombreros" (and I so want to find this as a picture!). This is what we want for our children: to learn how media report science, how science actually is, and what observation and inference are.
Do the inferences mean that the artist is wrong? Not necessarily, but we need to explain why we have drawn particular features. Although I remember the older dinosaur books having some pretty exotic colours, I never really thought it was legit... I sort of thought they'd be more camouflaged and I didn't think trees would be those colours. Mind you, they might have been anyway! I do remember that early efforts to model the iguanadon were completely wrong due to putting the fossil together incorrectly -could this still happen today?
So, have a read of some articles, look at some of the pictures, have a go at drawing the creature that would fit a particular skeleton (like a whale, camel or rabbit) without sharing what the creature is and then get the children to justify their efforts. They might even like to have a go at drawing what a dinosaur might have looked!
Here's some of the places I went:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/dinosaurs-and-the-anti-shrink-wrapping-revolution/
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/01/skin-deep-one-skin-fits-all-approach-to.html
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/ (This is the podcast one -I would certainly recommend it for the children to listen to as it is a safe one with some interesting ideas... and I like the idea of students listening to podcasts!).
I had to finish with this picture just because it looks lovely! Apparently most art of dinosaurs usually had them eating or fighting and this was one of the first pictures of them sleeping (although I'm wondering if they might have slept standing...).

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/all-yesterdays-book-and-launch-event/

So enjoy!
Keep on sciencing!

Paul

What do I need for science?

Well the last term for the year and time to start budgeting for the next! I often get asked what equipment do we need and I tend to be a bit vague: I don't really know what science you'll be doing! From working in schools and seeing what's around I have a few ideas and thought I'd share. This is not complete and it's a list that I imagine could continue to be added to.

In fact I so like the idea of everyone sharing, I've made a public google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q140qUcKC-xo3RMJd6msUDqubXW6qZ0FmQvfF4pCfvA/edit?usp=sharing. Feel free to have a look and add ideas! It would be great to have a joint list with practical things teachers are using.

With my lessons I tend to use consumables: plastic shot glasses for beakers, plastic cups and spoons and paper towels etc. I use plastic spoons for stirring and keep all my baking soda, etc containers so then I can share them out with the whole class. Having a stock of these is a good idea but I do know that some teachers don't really get the idea of replenishing supplies and leave it for the next person to do that -I've worked in schools and know this!

I like the kitchen science side: oil, vinegar, salt, sugars, baking soda, baking powder, etc are great. I also use butcher trays for the children to experiment in so there's less mess. I tend to like capacity but just use cups "get half a cup of water...". Having some jugs to measure capacity would be worthwhile as would some scales.

I would like to see in every classroom a set of magnifying glasses. Perhaps there could be four or five very good ones and then lots of the smaller ones -I guess you could share with another class but having some on the science table is important! Don't buy the plastic ones -they don't really work as well as the glass varieties. A USB microscope can be handy too, perhaps one per room. There are quite cheap ones out there that really just magnify well rather than get as fine as a microscope but I think they're fine for most science work. Having one really good microscope is useful too, particularly for the older children. I worked in country schools and used to get donated lovely microscopes from farmers -I don't know if that still happens though! Asking around can find good stuff -perhaps a local business or the vets have an older microscope they don't want?

Safety glasses can be helpful -I've used them a little bit and probably should use them more just to make sure eyes are protected. It's a good habit to get into!

I love ice cream containers too -mind you, I also love ice cream! There are lots of uses for these and I always have one in the car in case I go wandering and find something interesting. Start building up a collection for the school... If I look on my shelves, I have containers with marbles, kinetic sand, cornflour, toy cars, feathers, seed pods, shells, rocks, party poppers, exuvia, as well as a pile of objects I find at the $2 shop!

What else can I find on my shelves that might be useful... food colouring (the little squeezy bottles which are easier for children to use), a funnel, different size sealable plastic bags, PET bottles, magnets (these need to be checked regularly as they can lose their magnetic field), paper clips, and far too many rocks!

I'd love to hear more of your own ideas -feel free to add to the google doc or below and I'll add them...
And now I'm thinking about rulers and tweezers too!

Keep sciencing...
Oh, almost forgot... thanks to those of you who have asked for the weekly lessons -I hope they're useful! Do check out my facebook page too: science happening NZ!

have a great term!

Learning Pathways

You may have noticed in the odd blog post that I do think a little about learning pathways. How is the science linked through the years? What do middle and senior classes do to build on science experiences in the junior rooms? How much science or how should the science look for the Juniors?
One big focus can be the science capabilities and this gives a lot of freedom for teachers. It doesn't really matter what the context is as the children are developing how they observe, explain, critique and communicate. Because of this,the contexts are simply that! Contexts for students to develop science thinking so it doesn't matter if they only do floating and sinking at Y2 or the solar system at Y7.
My worry about this approach is that it's the depth of the science context that will build a greater development of the capabilities and the above approach may end up having children stuck at Gathering and Interpreting Data as each new concept taught probably needs a Level 1/2 approach before extending to Levels 3/4. In fact sometimes the children may never get past that early level.
Imagine if there were particular topics the school thought were vital (and I don't think one of those would be Floating and Sinking), for example, sustainability or an estuary study. It would be advantageous if these were local contexts that connect to the children's lives. The Rocky Shore may be a great one off topic for children who might visit there once in a while but a River study happening often would be good for a school where a river is a part of the community.
By carefully mapping out what the study might look like at different years, how each level will build on capabilities and content knowledge and topics, children won't get the sense of déjà vu! Junior classes may simply explore the river, looking at flora and fauna and learning the names of some of the creatures that live in, on, and around the river whilst middle levels may go into a bit more depth looking at how life around the river might depend on each other, how the ecosystem works. The seniors might monitor different aspects of the river, connect with scientists and explore various issues such as pollution. Of course, this is just an idea but the thought of ensuring different levels have different stuff to teach as well as different foci are very important
It's funny when teachers suggest they can't do a particular topic because it has already been done at a younger level or senior teachers couldn't possibly do butterflies as the juniors already have. When I get told this I think about whether there are scientists exploring the topic such as a lepidopterist (a butterfly scientist!) -are they still working at Level 1 or 2? What on earth could they be doing to still be interested in butterflies when most children (and some teachers) state they've 'done' butterflies by Y2! I think there's a real richness in revisiting some of those previous topics as well as having some topics that children will revisit. This way they can jump straight into the learning!
A few times with my PLD in schools, we've got teachers to share what they're doing with their respective classes. This is so valuable just in terms of connecting with one another and exposing each other to schoolwork that they otherwise may never have seen. I also hear teachers saying Oh, I wonder if my class think that! What an interesting opportunity to see if the children have developed further!
Finally, what about from your school to the next level up? It might be the local intermediate or college. What do those teachers teach in terms of topics? How do they view the capabilities? Are there particular skills that the children could be introduced to earlier? Particular vocab? Are there topics that it could be beneficial for the children to have at least been exposed to?
There's a lot to think about here but I think it's an essential topic to discuss with the staff. As we move towards the end of the year and start thinking about topics for next year, are there some 'essentials' that the school thinks is important? Is there a chance to revisit a topic?

Thanks for reading
Paul