Sir Paul Callaghan Science Academy Alumni Event

Yesterday was a busy day for me. After my guest spot on The Suite Talk, I attended an event put on by the Sir Paul Callaghan Science Academy. In 2015 (before I started this blog, that's actually a bit hard to believe, to be honest) I attended the Academy in Havelock North, and it was an amazing 4 day course where I learned a lot about teaching science and how interesting and relevant we can make it (because making slime and putting mentos in coke does not constitute a science program - sorry for those of you who think it does). This year they are offering half day workshops for alumni so I decided to sign up.

It was definitely worth the time and effort to get there for the two topics that we covered: Models and Causal Thinking/CERR (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning, Rebuttal).

Models

Models are a great way to help make any concept clear to a learner - not just in science. Often we forget that as adults we have had lots of experiences which leads to a lot of ways our brains can visualize complex ideas. Children don't necessarily have those experiences so as educators we can help foster better understanding by providing models. Models can come in a variety of forms. We discussed at length a question of whether or not a van or a car would tip over. We used the below cars, some cardboard and a protractor to see which would tip over. We discussed the pros and cons of using the models. It's a hands on activity that can be repeated quickly (fast feedback loop) and helps give a visual of what's happening, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what would happen with a real car or truck. 

As part of our discussion, I suggested that we could do some modelling on CoSpacesEdu, so in a few minutes I whipped up the simulation below. CoSpaces has a physics feature which can allow you to simulate many different things. It's not super precise (I didn't have many options for angles, but maybe I just missed that), but it does help give a visual.

We looked at a variety of other models, including drawings, models of the solar system (during which we discussed how no one model of it completely shows what it's like, but they all have some value in our understanding), Lego (a personal favourite), making similies and metaphors, among others. This certainly made me think more about models and modelling (which connects to what Jo Boaler says about Math learning) and will make me more conscious about putting models at the forefront of learning (not just Science learning). I also want to put a shout out to Google Expeditions which has many, many examples of AR models that can be used in the classroom to help further understanding.

Causal Thinking and CERR

Causal Thinking

We talked a lot about the difference between causation and correlation (and though it wasn't actually mentioned: coincidence) and how that distinction is becoming so important to make, especially with ideas that are being floated throughout social media and by some world leaders (cough, cough). Some of the examples we looked at were the relationship between a full moon and either births or strange behaviour as well as people getting a 6 months to live diagnosis but then having their cancer go into remission. These events actually have little to no evidence to support a causal relationship, but yet some people take small sample sizes that suggest no link between two events and try to convince others of it. A real example of causation, which many have probably seen was this: 

I think it's imperative to get children (and adults) talking about cause and effect. Like models, this is something that carries over to all areas (hey, there's a theme! Maybe it's not about the subjects but how we THINK about the subjects...). We should always be examining what the causes are and trying to determine if what we assume to be the reasons for something happening are truly the reasons.  As educators, we can also provide learning opportunities for learners to examine this relationship.

CERR (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning, Rebuttal)

This idea was shared as a method for reporting science investigations, which makes sense and helps build reasoning skills within children. Normally when we investigate something, we start with a question. We then perform a fair test which helps us gather evidence. Sometimes this is where investigations end. Those who continue on often use reasoning to make a claim about the original question and then share the results. Rarely do we think about the alternative case and provide a reason for why it isn't true (that would be a rebuttal). When we're sharing, however, we should start with our claim, follow with our evidence, our reasoning and then with an explanation of why the (an) alternate case is not true.

For example, my group was looking at the following question: Given their seeds are so similar are pine trees (picture on right) closely related to sycamore trees (picture on left)?

Our claim was that they were not similar to each other because when we looked closely at the seeds there were many differences. The sycamore seeds are spherical while the pine tree ones are flat and elongated. The sycamore seeds also have a main vein on one side which branches off like a wing or a leaf. Lines on the pine tree seed go vertically and don't really branch off. The pine tree seed is also very waxy and thin compared the the rougher and thicker sycamore leaf. We also reasoned that since the trees look actually quite different (Pine Trees are evergreen and Sycamores are deciduous) that the alternative (that they are closely related) is not likely to be possible.

It was a great way to spend an afternoon, all told. The presenter was amazing and we had some good conversations about the topics we learned. I would recommend anyone interested in becoming a better educator of science to try to find one of the free workshops put on by the academy (see the link at the top). They're amazing!

Science Unleashed: Making Motorized Cars

I'm super far behind on my blogging. I've actually already had the third Science Unleashed lesson, but I've not written about the second.

After the first night, I was very excited to get back to the North Shore (without the wrong turns this time!) and see what Chris had in store for us. When I walked in, there were a variety of some really cool things on the table: motors, cardboard, propellers, battery packs. This was clearly going to be a fun evening.

We were again working in partners and our task was to make a vehicle that moved. We had a certain amount of time to build our first prototype and test it, with very little direction - except for the basic concept of the car and how we could potentially make it. My partner and I quickly discussed what we wanted to make and divided up the tasks. We made our vehicle quickly and when it didn't really go, we looked at the problems - the wheels were a bit sticky and not turning easily, the motor didn't have enough power - and decided how we would modify it.  We made smoother wheels and added a second battery pack (some may say this was cheating, but I'm not among them).

Here's a video of how our test worked out at this point:

Afterwards we had the conference like we had the week before, but instead of just discussion what we could potentially test and change, we came up with a plan of who would investigate what. We ended up looking at whether or not weight made a difference or if more power made a difference.  When we tested these as a group, ours went quicker than everyone else's - most likely because of the extra battery packs.

Again, we had a discussion on how we could improve our vehicles.

What was interesting today was not necessarily what we did, but how our scientific community evolved from week to week. We learned from our mayhem the week before and became more organized in our methods, which led to us being more successful in coming to a consensus in the end. I'm going to give Chris the benefit of the doubt and say that this was his plan - get us to create our own community. I look forward to the last two sessions (spoiler - the next one was pretty good too!).

Science Unleashed, Day 1: Rocket Launching

Last night I went to the first of four Science Unleashed workshops with Chris Clay and Ally Bull. I was quite excited because since I met him at the MindLab I've enjoyed everything that Chris has shared with me PLUS I have a science background and enjoy doing fun sciencey stuff with children.

After getting lost not once, not twice, but three times on my way there, I finally found the room at AUT North Shore and settled in. We had a brief introduction but it was straight into a fun, exploratory, playing activity. We were given rocket powder (not actually rocket powder), and rocket liquid fuel (also, not actually rocket liquid fuel, as well as a variety of other materials to make our rockets. Chris did a "shoddy demonstration" (his words, not mine, and on purpose) to give us some basic idea of what we needed to do, with the simple task of seeing if we could make our rocket go high.

All of the partnerships worked, trying different mixtures of the liquid (there were 3), different shapes for our fuel delivery system, as well as different amounts of liquid and powder. When we first started, the rockets didn't work really well (our first one didn't even explode!). But over time, it was clear that more and more of everyone's rockets were getting higher. It was at this point that Chris stopped us and brought us inside to conference. He had us discuss what we found out. Could we make any claims that were supported by evidence. We wrote our claims down and discussed what had happened. There was some consensus on what was certain (one of the fuels was useless) but there was also some disagreement.

Then we went back outside and had another go at it. This time a few groups spoke with each other and discussed which variables we would test. Angela and I decided on changing the amount of liquid. We found that a little bit of liquid worked better than a lot. Have a look at one of our tests. Unfortunately it shot up so quickly we couldn't see the whole thing. But you can tell that there was a lot of upward force propelling it.

The last step of our investigation was another debrief back in the classroom. We discussed ways in which we could improve our investigation. A few of us thought that it would be better if we decided as a group which variables we would test. Others discussed how we would make our measurements more accurate and what things we should measure (we thought that timing hang time would help determine which rockets when highest).

So what was the point of this? Well, there were a lot. The first one is that science and other fun, hands-on activities can be done on the cheap. Not all schools can afford lots of equipment, and Chris even said early on that having less materials and resources can actually be a good thing as it forces you to be innovative.

The whole process was one that was meant to promote the Nature of Science (NoS). Compared to a 'typical' science lesson, one like what we did pretty much gives opportunities to develop all four strands of NoS. For Understanding About Science, learners are given the chance to make their own explanations and understand how science works. They are clearly learning what Investigating in Science means because they are carrying out their own investigations. The whole time, learners are Communicating with their partners and with each other. The conferencing was a fantastic way of communicating this idea. There are also loads of possibilities to share their learning with others or digitally. Every single one of us was participating in actual science and we were all contributing the the scientific community that we had created amongst ourselves.

Though this is not the first time I've participated in Science PD that was similar to this, I have continued to get loads of ideas. As Chris said, he's not about giving us a recipe for a perfect science lesson. But he did give us some great ideas to provoke scientific thinking and investigating. And that's before you consider the inspiration that this night has provided me. I'm looking forward to next week!