Science at home is the same as in the laboratory...

I was travelling around the countryside (for work of course!) when this interview came on the radio. I've become a bit of a National Radio convert which I assume everyone does as they get older -now that would be an interesting research project! Anyway Kathryn Ryan was talking to Dr Helen Czerski about everyday objects and actions that reflect deeper science -theories as well as illustrations. I think she might have been on TV that week too.

Radio New Zealand

Here's the link to the interview -it's only 23 minutes long and well worth a listen (if just for a really good science reason for doing the Dancing Raisins experiment!):  http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201839077/can't-pop-this-bubble-scientist's-passion-for-physics.
The reason I like the conversation is that Dr Czerski is discussing ideas and questions she has about the world around her, for example why tea sometimes slops when she walks, bubbles in her coffee, etc. More than this, she's investigating further! I sometimes wonder if students even have these types of questions -I wonder why there are drops on the outside of the fizzy drink bottle? I wonder why there are more mynah birds these days?... If we're developing that awe and curiosity in students, sharing with them that scientists wonder these kinds of questions may encourage them to start growing wonderings.

Of course, linking them to more complex science is possibly beyond us primary teachers but I do like the thought that we could share this thinking with our Y7-10 children. In looking at the 'why', again, we may need to use google -so why does tapping stop the coke can 'exploding' when I open it? But before googling, could children do some investigating? Could they explore the question, grow some inferences, build some explanations from their investigations and then check the internet to see what others say, critiquing carefully -roomtwo.com may not have as much validity as a university site!

I read something recently (and cannot remember the paper but will put it in here if I do!) that talked about children carrying out the same work as scientists is important. I do think this means heading down to the estuary and working alongside the DoC staff, observing and counting animals but could it also mean what Dr Czerski does? Could they investigate why a popcorn pops? At least they could put some ideas together before heading online to further clarify their thinking. Naturally, we could just send the students online in the first place but if we are to be explicit about our teaching the Nature of Science (a Randy Bell comment), an opportunity to grow our questioning, plan and investigate further, attempt to explain our own findings and then check the internet means children could be working within the science lens -measuring, predicting, hypothesizing, critiquing, guessing,  deciding, explaining, communicating, debating, etc can all be happening in far greater detail than a quick 'check the web'. In conversations I've had with teachers over the last few weeks, the need for content knowledge has come up lots -particularly how much we need to teach science 'effectively'. Having a wee squiz before the lessons to get some idea of what is going on may help you feel far more confident and capable as well as enable you to question students more effectively. Because I'm a pretty good questioner with a bit of general science, I'm happy to be thrown in the deep end and discover alongside the students but you may feel happier having some pre-knowledge!

So, have a listen to the webcast, perhaps have a try at one of the doctor's ideas and start growing a wonder wall in the class where children can stick post it notes with their wonderings.

The Nature of Science, the capabilities and the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything

With apologies to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I've been pondering the deeper meaning of the Nature of Science. I've been helped with a few readings around the capabilities and lifelong learning and just thinking, as always, How do I ensure children are understanding about science when I'm teaching it? My worry is that the science I teach will look just like Social Studies or Art or P.E... Each of these Learning Areas should have variations to the questions, answers, discussions and our role (both as student and teacher). We may observe in Art and Science but should they be the same?

In Art, I may be thinking about the warmth of colours, the intent behind the art, and other possibly more subjective ideas than I might in science. There could be some 'science' observations... I see three oranges and an  apple but we're hoping for interpretation, expression and other arty things! Strangely enough, when I googled that phrase, I found a band actually called that!

Anyway, before I squirrel off, how do we ensure that these 'lenses' are understood by the children? I've had the odd student go 'wow' or 'yuck' during a lesson and I've always said that we can respond with these thoughts, but are they a scientific observation? Do we all agree with your noticings? I would rather not eat pumpkin as I think it's yuck, however you may love it! We can both agree when describing the size, shape, colour, or how our senses notice the pumpkin -and that's a more scientific observation! The TKI site (http://scienceonline.tki.org.nz/Science-capabilities-for-citizenship/Introducing-five-science-capabilities) says about observations, or gathering data: "Science knowledge is based on data derived from direct, or indirect, observations of the natural physical world and often includes measuring something."
During workshops, we sometimes talk about students bringing to school a cultural lens or a religious lens... They might be using more than one lens at a time. Our aim is that, when we're talking about science, children recognise there's a style of language or behaviour or method. We're not saying this lens is more important but just different!

So rewinding back to my intial pondering, how do we ensure that children are getting the deeper message of the science capabilities or the Nature of Science? I think it's all wrapped up in that first Nature of Science strand Understanding about Science...

New Zealand Curriculum "Understanding about Science" Aim

Perhaps if we have this kind of intent, our children may get a clearer picture of what we're trying to do in science education. I also can't help thinking that through this particular strand, the other three Nature of Science strands sort of fall into line: "Because I know that scientists are very careful with their investigations, I'll make sure I record the data accurately...(Investigating in Science)" or "I know scientists communicate their findings with one another, I better make sure I have the right name for that seashell...(Communicating in Science)"
So how do we do this? There are places where science is happening, who are very happy to share their scientists, their findings, and some even like tours. The Science Learning Hub  are changing a little the way they do things and part of this involves them being available to help classrooms connect with scientists. They also have videos on their website as well: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/ for students to watch. These scientists may not know the Nature of Science from our curriculum per se, but we can reflect back with our classes What did you see? How do we know that she was a scientist? How did she do things that showed us how we could / should be working in science? One important thing is student knowledge -and how do we grow and develop student knowledge through their own efforts (I sort of think this question could be bigger than the the Ultimate Question at the beginning of the blog!)? I love the sentence on p. 28 of the NZC that shows us: (Science) involves generating and testing ideas, gathering evidence -including by making observations, carrying out investigations and modelling, and communicating and debating with others -in order to develop scientific knowledge, understanding and explanations. This doesn't just mean "knowledge" as in the Latin name for a kauri snail being Paryphanta Busbyi but also knowing about science, about being responsible, about critiquing, about investigating and questioning, etc... Incidentally whilst I was looking up the Latin name, I came across this wikipedia page which I think is perfect for students to critique -is this really a 'scientific' piece of writing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paryphanta. A fascinating explanation!
So, with the Nature of Science being the 'overarching strand' and the only compulsory one, how do we ensure we're not just gathering data or describing an orange which we might do in any other area, but we're doing science!
Oh, and just a funny cartoon to finish with. I love Gary Larson's work and came across it when I was looking for an art cartoon for this post. Doesn't really fit the blog but I like it! (So does that make it a scientific observation then?!?)

Keep sciencing on!
Paul

Kia Ora
Yesterday, caught this article in the New Zealand Herald from their Sideswipe section (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11814582) and I thought 'what a great way to show what critiquing is all about'! I might be a bit squeamish and wouldn't show the second photo as it has more than just spoons in it (!).

However it could be interesting to show the initial photo and perhaps an introduction with the claim that KFC is getting smaller... What questions to the children have? Are any of the questions ones that critique or challenge? And how do those questions look different? Who could we ask (without actually asking!) for further information -the article has a few ideas on this but there are no answers which is a shame!
Could we decide just from the photo? Could we look at a variety of teaspoons and other sized spoons to see what we think?
One aspect of this quick activity is the opportunity to communicate. The NZC for Science has a lot to say about communication (pages 28 and 29), both about scientists communicating with one another and the general public, as well as us communicating with one another. How do we discuss? How do we argue? Can I just say "You're a complete idiot! You can well see that this is a dessert spoon!" or do I need to think and communicate 'as a scientist'... and what does that look like? Can I be emotional? Do I need evidence? Do I need to be objective or subjective? How do scientists communicate (and I'm thinking how should they communicate rather than how they do communicate!)?
From my thinking there are a few things happening here -I would like the children to start challenging what they read, see or hear within a science context, and I would like to see children beginning to critique and knowing how to critique. If you read the last post, we are keen to see science citizenship happening in Aotearoa New Zealand, and for me, this includes thinking about how do we regular citizens interact with the world of science. Although this article is about KFC and chicken size, the tools and thinking will nicely come into play with any of our science activities... as well as being tools that we as adults can use.

And to finish for no reason at all... From the next day's Sideswipe, sharks... with human teeth! I wonder if this would change what they would eat, how they would catch food... My favourite one is bottom right!

Have a fantastic day!
Paul

Science for citizenship... citizen science...

Kia Ora
Just a quick note today... off to lovely Rotorua to share some science, work in classrooms and generally wreak havoc!
I've been thinking a little bit about the role of science within our lives. The NZC states that science plays a significant role (p. 17) so with this in mind, it should be a bit of a priority in classrooms. Of course we already have plenty of other priorities including growing vege gardens, teaching the children to swim and possibly squeezing in literacy and mathematics too!
If science is to play, or is indeed playing a 'significant role', how do we citizens respond? The other night I watched a news article about an upcoming 1080 drop with people from both sides arguing the case. It seems, as a nation (in fact, as a planet), we're losing the ability to discuss. We simply shout louder a particular view with absolutely no interest in any other point of view. Could we be supporting our students to develop communication skills? Again, the NZC on p.28 discusses the need for communication right through all components of the Nature of Science! Can children share their views, listen to other points of views and possibly change their mind? When I watch videos, particularly of the US and their political protests, I do wonder whether this could happen!
My job does tune me in, but I do wonder about this "significant role" science plays. It seems some areas are seeing a drop in science being taken at higher NCEA levels and universities are finding the same. One scientific research centre I spoke to told me they had to hire from overseas as we just didn't have the uni courses to grow the needed skills and there were few graduates anyway. So how do we start 'making' science important again?
Science definitely makes the news: 1080 drops, medical breakthroughs, new solar systems discovered were just over the weekend that I saw. Last week, I was reading about the Canterbury river system with its braided rivers which are quite unique and the issues with farmers needing water and the system possibly degrading. I come across science articles and comments through Facebook, although  not sure that reflects "science"! I wonder how people respond. Do they read through or glance through or ignore? Do they accept whatever they read, hear or watch, whether it be NZ Herald, television news, a documentary, National Radio, etc? Do people critique? Do they know how? And more importantly, do we need to know how?

From Fake Science, Facebook

So winding up my quick post... With all this science around us, do we need to start exposing our students to it? Do we need to teach them how to critique? Could we be using science as an authentic context for literacy and numeracy? Let's read this article and then discuss it. What do you think? Is it important that you have an opinion on the 1080 drops? Are DoC right? What about the protesters saying millions of birds are killed with each new drop -are they right? Have they counted?
I would hope as children become more tuned to science playing a significant role, they will start to think that they too have a significant role in society!

And to finish... saw a duck eating an acorn the other day so shared my findings with a colleague like this "Did you know ducks eat acorns?... Well one duck did... Well I saw her eat one acorn, I don't know if she eats lots... I'll start again. I saw a duck eating an acorn!" The joys of scientific observation!

Have a great sciency day
Paul

Sea Week Feb 25 - Mar 5

Coming up very soon is Sea Week and, particularly if you are near the beach, a great reason to hit the surf! As always there are a lot of resources already out there. The best place to start is http://seaweek.org.nz/, the 'home site' for the week. They have resources, events, videos and more on the site and it is certainly a great place to start.
One of the pages has a citizen science idea around brown seaweed. NIWA are collecting information about the seaweed to see whether it si an indicator of pollution. the website (http://naturewatch.org.nz/projects/large-brown-seaweed-distributions) has a sign in option using google (which most schools have) or you can register, perhaps as a class. These opportunities for students to work 'with' and 'as' scientists are really valuable in terms of students understanding about science. The NZC statement says that students explore how science works and these kinds of activities enable this... Why do we need to record accurately? What if I just change the data a little? What would happen if everyone exaggerated their observations? The seaweed observations also show the importance of knowledge. Although, as teachers, we're growing our students in terms of their processes, skills, capabilities, etc, we still need the contexts! I'm not going to asses how many types of seaweed the students can identify but they do need to know the different names so as to be able to communicate their observations.

wikipedia image

Scientists don't call Neptune's Necklace "that green bobbly one" because there might be another green bobbly seaweed out there... If I told you about the little yellow flowers growing in my lawn, it could be a daisy or a buttercup (or possibly some other yellow flower!). We use names to communicate what we're noticing so we can be specific and if we use the same name, then others can use our observations, record data, compare results, etc. It would be interesting for the children to discuss why do we need to know the names of the seaweed -what would happen if we all used different names?

Marine Metre Squared, from the University of Otago is another citizen science project. If you go to their website, you'll find resources and ideas as well as information on joining their efforts in monitoring local seashores.

For more ideas, check out NIWA or the science learning hub (https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/events/39-seaweek-2017) for more teacher resources and support. An interesting question -could you do Sea Week without being near a beach? Those of you who have been subjected (!) to my workshops will know that I like seashells. They're great for observations and building curiosity... Get children to draw their shell -can they find their particular shell (or even better, can someone else identify their shell?), what are some of the wonderings they might have... how come the shells are different sizes?, different colours?, why do some shells have rings like on a tree stump?, how strong are the shells?, are shells the same from different beaches or different countries? What senses can they use in observing the shells? You could create a wordbank under the different senses that children could then use for other observations. Could the define what a shell is? Is it different to a rock? Are there some things that are the same between a rock and a shell? Perhaps children could use a Venn diagram to describe the similarities and differences. Could students set up a flow chart for identifying common seashells? Finally, could students chat to a marine biologist either face to face or online (or even better, at the beach!) and learn about their work as a scientist?

I haven't even started on how I could integrate maths, reading and writing into this science but there are lots of opportunities to take science from after lunch and use it as authentic contexts in the morning! And then there's all that lovely technology we can use too!

So, have a go!
Paul





https://seashellsbymillhill.com/

Science playing a significant role in society...

Well, a brand new year and lots more opportunities for science in the classroom! One thing I've been thinking a bit about is 'how much science is happening in  my life?'... The essence statement in the NZC (p. 17) talks about science playing a significant role in society -so does this actually happen?
Just thinking about this over the last week for me included a few ponderings...

• we have a plum tree absolutely laden with fruit which is causing some branches to break and be hanging on by the proverbial fingernail. I've been quite fascinated as the leaves and fruit haven't withered, they still look healthy. And this causes me to wonder about the structure of the branch -which bits are essential for the fruit and leaves? I'm guessing the outer  bits as that's what is still connected to the tree. We're also getting a lot of birds around the tree eating the plums -thankfully just the ones on the ground but I do wonder if it's a way for them to get moisture... or they might just like plums! Do they taste like we do? 
• I've had a bit of a sore back from an accident and the doctor prescribed some pills which caused me to become quite drowsy and 'muddy'... reading online they all have a few side effects -but then how do I know which website is legitimate? Could it be the site that says x medicine is bad, is producing y medicine that they would like people to use? And how common are the side effects? And why do doctors prescribe these if they're bad? 
• Admittedly I was reading a science book at the time, but the author was writing about magnets and it suddenly occurred to me that the N on magnets is not because it's the North but because it points to the North! If it was the North then it would be repelled by the magnetic north (just like when you put two magnets against each if both ends were 'N')... I tried to explain it to a group of teachers but I think I lost them!
• I've also been reading a few bits on our extinct birds -the huia (one of my faves), the piopio (I was driving through the town and started wondering) and the laughing owl...
• and finally on my to do list is to look a bit deeper into the ads on TV with a petrol company setting up a game with certificates and medallions for children around science and the environment...

What about you? I love it that science has the potential to be in our everyday lives... with cooking, fixing something, gardening, medicine, almost anything. I once had a chat with someone who thought that electricity is science and therefore turning a light on must be science. I argued that the ability to simply turn on the light isn't really science, although the stuff going on to make the light turn on is. I might simply zap my lunch in the microwave and be done with it -that's not really science, or I could wonder why the middle gets really hot, much hotter than the outside... could I design something that prevents this from happening (getting into technology too!)? When I was watching The Chase, they said that phones are on microwave something or others too -so why doesn't that cook stuff as these phone signals bounce around the world and in my pocket? I might want to read a bit more, growing my own wonder and curiosity... I know there are many who think that phones and microwave ovens are a cause for cancer... I wonder why they think that?

And now onto some ideas for the classroom (although I'd be interested whether children have been doing 'science things' in the holidays... books, TV programmes, museums, wonderings...).

If you follow this blog, you know I have a soft spot for the octopus and the bee. I saw this article on the stuff app and thought it was an interesting video to show the students: http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/88993604/angry-octopus-tries-to-intimidate-diver-interrupting-its-morning-walk. When they watch it, let them talk amongst themselves (there's no sound really anyway) and perhaps play it a couple of times... The octopus spends most of the video blowing itself up -which I never knew they could do! At the end it swims away and that's quite neat too. Start with observing before inferring: what do they notice about the octopus, about its head, eyes, tentacles, etc" What colours can they see? What else is in the water? And then we can infer from our observations... Why do the children think the octopus was doing that? If we decided it was because it was scared, why didn't it squirt ink like I've seen other octopus do? Are there examples of other animals that do that? Pattern seeking is an important part of science, making connections to prior experiences and knowledge. And my other question is, how did it blow itself up? Was it air? Fluids? If the children enjoy the octopus video, there are a few more that I posted last year. Oh, one more thing... what do the children think of the diver? Was she being responsible? Was it the right way to treat the creature? And what about the headline for the article: do octopus really go for morning walks?

The other bit I want to share are a series of photos that a friend of mine took and posted on facebook. I already have a very soft spot for bees -you'll often find me feeding sugar water to any bees I find resting on the ground and rescuing them out of pools and rooms in the house! Science is about building curiosity, awe and wonder but I think it's also about action... After I read about the piopio bird (I had just travelled through the town and started wondering about this bird), it started me thinking about the birdlife of New Zealand and how I can be a part of the solution to help save our amazing flora and fauna. Show the first photo to the students and ask them what do they notice...

If they say 'the bees are going for a swim' or 'the bees are having a drink of water', these are inferences! It's only a photo and we can assume but it's not what we can notice. Don't get me wrong, we do want children to infer (it's the interpret of the Gather and Interpret Data capability) but we want them to observe first... What do you notice? How many bees are there? Which way are their bodies? Are there any other insects there or just bees? What type of bees are these?

This is a little bit closer. There's one poor bee that flew a bit too close... I notice little ripples surrounding the bee on the surface so I'm thinking that it's still struggling (and there the gather and the interpret... the observing and the inferring or thinking about the observation. I've never seen bees group like this before other than swarming or in the hive and I have loads of questions about what I can see. If I zoom right in, most have their heads towards the water. There aren't any bees at the top, all seem as close to the water as they can get. I'm also wondering if there's a hive nearby as I don't normally see this big a group of bees in one place. I've never actually thought about insects needing water -spiders (which I know aren't an insect!) set up shop in a corner of a room -do they need water too? If so, how do they get it? The day was a very hot one so maybe the bees weren't getting enough sustenance from the nectar? Did they take the water back to the hive? I might end up needing to talk to an apiarist (a beekeeper!) and asking a few questions about bees! The internet is a great tool although I do like to get the children having conversations first and possible solutions before rushing to Google for "the answer". I did find this article which was quite interesting: http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=14566. It's a blog about insects so seems reputable but I might need to a bit more looking and checking facts.

One last bit about the bees... One of the books I read over the Christmas break had a bit about the way society talk and the different way science 'talks' and one of the examples was 'animal'. If, before you show these photos, you asked the children to define 'animal', I'm imagining they would give the society answer... probably four legged, probably mammals or reptiles, possibly birds but definitely not an insect as that is an... insect! However, from a science point of view, the bee is most definitely an animal! As is a worm or mosquito or spider. Another interesting one is the term "plant" -usually it's the veges or flowers, and some children will say a tree is not a plant, since it's a tree, and weeds are definitely not plants! It's important for children to understand how science is communicated and that terms we use normally might mean something different from a scientist's point of view.

Oh and now we have curiosity about the bees drinking water (or are they?!?), an action point... would it be worthwhile having little drink stations for all animals during the hottest part of summer? The swimming pool always seems to fill with bugs which I've always noticed but not really thought about other than to rescue ladybirds (another 'favourite insect!) and bees -maybe they were all attracted to the water because they were thirsty?

Well have a great week, and do post a comment if you have a go at these ideas :-)

Paul

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