How do you do science when your activities and experiments always seem to go wrong?

[kbpaulie]

And what do you teach your kids through this? (I've heard people say you can learn from experiments that go wrong.)

 

But for example, if you put seeds in the fridge, cabinet and window sill and trying to determine which one will grow fastest, and all but the ones in the cabinet rot, we didn't get the "right" answer, and how would my kids ever learn what the "right" answer was if it weren't for me saying, well, this is what SHOULD have happened.....

 

Or when you're trying to grow sugar crystals, and they just won't grow. You try it again and they still don't grow. And YOU don't know why they won't grow.....

 

How do you teach when these things happen?

[melbotoast]

The same things have happened to me so :bigear:

[Mom2pandc]

I needed this post today. I'm so glad I'm not the only one. I was doing a popcorn experiment today trying to see how many kernels out of 10 popped within 20 seconds of the first pop. I ended up with a ball of fire in the popcorn popper when the oil caught fire. Needless to say I threw the popper on the deck because it smelled awful, it's now blackened and I owe my husband a new one. I looked at the kids and said, that's how to start oil on fire....science is over. :tongue_smilie:

[sagira]

:lurk5:

[Ravin]

I encourage open inquiry. I have DD postulate a hypothesis, and present what the book said as a hypothesis as well. When an experiment fails, look at the variables that weren't controlled or might be different from the situation in the book.

[ALB]

I don't know but this frustrates me, too! Nothing ever seems to do what its supposed to in our house. I even have a few Magic Schoolbus Science Kits and the experiments have almost all failed. I think watching a video of someone successfully doing an experiment might be an option for us at some point.

[Ravin]

Mr. Wizard!

[boscopup]

I had the sugar crystal thing end up growing too many sugar crystals, and it was just one big huge crystal. :lol: Not what I was expecting.

 

I don't do a lot of experiments here, but if my kids are doing one, I usually just let them try to figure it out. For the plant thing... find out why it molded and how to get it not to mold. Google is your friend. Then try the experiment again. :)

[lewelma]

And what do you teach your kids through this? (I've heard people say you can learn from experiments that go wrong.)

 

It really depends on your goals for these scientific activities, and your goals depend on your kids' ages and on the type of activity/demonstration/experiment that you are doing. In general for every situation, I talk to the kids about our personal problems and then relate our difficulties to what real scientists face.

 

1) If your goal is to teach kids how to use scientific equipment (like Bunsen burner or a microscope), then you have them keep practicing until they have the dexterity and precision to make the equipment work to expectations. Similarly, if your goal is teach them how to do a methodological process like running a transcript or doing a dissection, you need to brainstorm what went wrong and then have your student repeat the process until he can master it. It might be that your student never fully masters it, and then you explain that it can take years for a graduate student to master certain techniques, and that is part of what he/she is trying to learn. Science is about asking questions and finding answers, and often very technical procedures need to be used to find the answer. Give an example of a science that you know a lot about. For example, think about a cell biology lab, a grad student needs to learn how to use the flow hood so as to keep all the cultures clean, and needs to learn how to identify and count organisms etc. These are procedures that can take months to learn to do well. It is also a good time to talk about experimenter error and how scientists are not perfect. Scientists replicate to help reduced the importance of their own error compared to the real effect they are trying to measure.

 

2) If your goal is to demonstrate a known process, like making crystals or chromatography of ink, you need to be clear that you are not actually trying to do an experiment. Rather you are trying to replicate a known scientific process. You have a couple of options. 1) if you don't have time or the resources to redo the work, then you show them on youtube what should have happened and then brainstorm how your set up could have varied. Is temperature important to growing crystals? Could impurities like greasy fingers inhibit crystal growth? Do your chemicals degrade over time and is your kit old? etc. 2) if you do have time, then you can research on the internet what could have gone wrong and you then redo your demonstration. We made a home made kite once using instructions from a book, we could. not. get. it. to. fly. We tried for a month. Yes, really a month. We did lots of research as to what was wrong and tried to adjust everything we could think of. We knew that kites fly, and we were working off of instructions from a book, so it should work. In the end we did research into air currents and found that we had a wind shadow from the trees near the field that was causing turbulent air. We switched fields, and it flew.

 

3) If you are running a real experiment where you don't actually know the answer, then the data you get is not wrong. Science is not about getting the "right" answer. If you have replicated and controlled appropriately, then unexpected answers allow you to brainstorm what happened, and why your initial hypothesis was incorrect. This is an exciting time because you have found something new and unexpected. Celebrate and come up with a follow on experiment. However, if in hindsight you realize that you have not controlled or replicated appropriately, then you need to redo your experiment with proper controls and replications. This is also the perfect time to discuss probability and chance. Scientists replicate because they need to average out chance. My little boy once compared different fertilizers to see which cause plants to grow taller. We did not know the answer -- this was real science. We only had 3 replications in each group, so not really enough. One plant by chance germinated 5 days earlier than all others, and then grew taller than all others. This was the perfect time to talk about outliers and chance. Scientists have to deal with this kind of thing all the time. So we also talked about how if we had had 100 plants in each group, then when we took an average, 1 early sprouter would not have mattered that much.

 

4) If your goal is to teach persistence (and this is an important goal in science), then you try, try, try again. This is what we definitely learned with the kite. And I describe the frustrations that Thomas Edison must have faced when trying to find a filament that would work in the light bulb. I mean, really, Tungsten?

 

5) But in the end if your goal is to have fun and spend time with your kids, then you have a good laugh and a hug, and you put a smile on your face and don't get frustrated. Then you go find a different activity. I seriously don't mean this as a joke, science can just be fun with little kids and that is ok. Just be clear on your goals.

 

One last thought, science IS very frustrating. NOTHING every goes right. Ask me how I know! So really stress to your kids that discovery is difficult and is not a linear path. Scientists have to try many different approaches and spend long hours to SOMETIMES answer their questions. If all your kids ever see is easy, tidy demonstrations, they are likely to come away with the idea that science is easy. This misperception permeates the news and government. Reporters and politicians always think science will be cheap, fast, and effective at answering incredibly complex and difficult questions. So if your kids get frustrated that something did not work, you have a very easy out -- "I am just trying to show you how difficult scientific discovery really is."

 

I have written 2 very long posts on the importance of keeping clear the difference between getting a "wrong" answer when doing a demonstration and rejecting your hypothesis when running a real experiment where you don't know the answer. See posts 90 and 96, http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=263107 . They might help to answer some of your questions and get you think about science education in a new light.

 

HTH,

 

And I am happy to give you my take on your seed experiment if you give me more details,

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited September 15, 2012 by lewelma

[Carol in Cal.]

Ask your friends which experiments really work. Then do those.

 

The volcano one is good.

 

Color mixing using homemade playdough is reliably successful, and kind of fun. Link it with Mousepaint.

 

Adventures with Atoms and Molecules experiments usually work. Try the ones with Alka Selzer.

 

The cabbage indicator can be a fun one as well.

 

Demos are sometimes better than experiments. A couple of years ago I taught the Rutherford experiment using ping pong balls and golf balls and really big marbles. It was pretty memorable.

 

Nature observation can be taught very simply by making the kids sit outside sans electronics for 15 minutes per day in the same spot all year round and record their observations in a journal.

[meggie]

It really depends on your goals for these scientific activities, and your goals depend on your kids' ages and on the type of activity/demonstration/experiment that you are doing. In general for every situation, I talk to the kids about our personal problems and then relate our difficulties to what real scientists face.

 

1) If your goal is to teach kids how to use scientific equipment (like Bunsen burner or a microscope), then you have them keep practicing until they have the dexterity and precision to make the equipment work to expectations. Similarly, if your goal is teach them how to do a methodological process like running a transcript or doing a dissection, you need to brainstorm what went wrong and then have your student repeat the process until he can master it. It might be that your student never fully masters it, and then you explain that it can take years for a graduate student to master certain techniques, and that is part of what he/she is trying to learn. Science is about asking questions and finding answers, and often very technical procedures need to be used to find the answer. Give an example of a science that you know a lot about. For example, think about a cell biology lab, a grad student needs to learn how to use the flow hood so as to keep all the cultures clean, and needs to learn how to identify and count organisms etc. These are procedures that can take months to learn to do well. It is also a good time to talk about experimenter error and how scientists are not perfect. Scientists replicate to help reduced the importance of their own error compared to the real effect they are trying to measure.

 

2) If your goal is to demonstrate a known process, like making crystals or chromatography of ink, you need to be clear that you are not actually trying to do an experiment. Rather you are trying to replicate a known scientific process. You have a couple of options. 1) if you don't have time or the resources to redo the work, then you show them on youtube what should have happened and then brainstorm how your set up could have varied. Is temperature important to growing crystals? Could impurities like greasy fingers inhibit crystal growth? Do your chemicals degrade over time and is your kit old? etc. 2) if you do have time, then you can research on the internet what could have gone wrong and you then redo your demonstration. We made a home made kite once using instructions from a book, we could. not. get. it. to. fly. We tried for a month. Yes, really a month. We did lots of research as to what was wrong and tried to adjust everything we could think of. We knew that kites fly, and we were working off of instructions from a book, so it should work. In the end we did research into air currents and found that we had a wind shadow from the trees near the field that was causing turbulent air. We switched fields, and it flew.

 

3) If you are running a real experiment where you don't actually know the answer, then the data you get is not wrong. Science is not about getting the "right" answer. If you have replicated and controlled appropriately, then unexpected answers allow you to brainstorm what happened, and why your initial hypothesis was incorrect. This is an exciting time because you have found something new and unexpected. Celebrate and come up with a follow on experiment. However, if in hindsight you realize that you have not controlled or replicated appropriately, then you need to redo your experiment with proper controls and replications. This is also the perfect time to discuss probability and chance. Scientists replicate because they need to average out chance. My little boy once compared different fertilizers to see which cause plants to grow taller. We did not know the answer -- this was real science. We only had 3 replications in each group, so not really enough. One plant by chance germinated 5 days earlier than all others, and then grew taller than all others. This was the perfect time to talk about outliers and chance. Scientists have to deal with this kind of thing all the time. So we also talked about how if we had had 100 plants in each group, then when we took an average, 1 early sprouter would not have mattered that much.

 

4) If your goal is to teach persistence (and this is an important goal in science), then you try, try, try again. This is what we definitely learned with the kite. And I describe the frustrations that Thomas Edison must have faced when trying to find a filament that would work in the light bulb. I mean, really, Tungsten?

 

5) But in the end if your goal is to have fun and spend time with your kids, then you have a good laugh and a hug, and you put a smile on your face and don't get frustrated. Then you go find a different activity. I seriously don't mean this as a joke, science can just be fun with little kids and that is ok. Just be clear on your goals.

 

I have written 2 very long posts on the importance of keeping clear the difference between getting a "wrong" answer when doing a demonstration and rejecting your hypothesis when running a real experiment where you don't know the answer. See posts 90 and 96, http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=263107 . They might help to answer some of your questions and get you think about science education in a new light.

 

HTH,

 

And I am happy to give you my take on your seed experiment if you give me more details,

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Ruth, I could listen to you talk about science all day long :D Especially about the difference between an experiment and a demonstration.

[IsabelC]

I have wondered about this also.

 

Thank you so much for your helpful answer Ruth.

[HejKatt]

I've been thinking about how to evaluate if demonstrations will work, prior to actually attempting them. This is what I have so far:

 

1) Enough technical background

Is enough background given to understand that the demonstration really shows the claimed principle? Ruth gave an example in this post.

 

2) Well defined hypotheses

From this blog post:

A hypothesis is not a guess, not even an educated guess, but the prediction of a model in a situation in which different models make different predictions.

 

I remember a Little Labs kit which posed the question, "What would happen if we put coloring into the water for some cut flowers" and there were two hypothesis pictures i) Flower with petals changing color, and ii) Flower wearing a dress. Errrm, right, what am I trying to teach again?

 

3) Sturdy materials and design

I've started to steer clear of cheap kits now, preferring instead to buy individual components. E.g. if I have to punch out silver-paper cardboard pieces and glue them together (to substitute for mirrors), the end result is more likely to fall apart in pieces than show anything.

 

There are also expensive versions to avoid, e.g. do I really need a fan mounted on wheels to demonstrate Newton's 3rd law?

 

4) Clear, unambiguous text/pictures

Photos/drawings for crucial steps help. Reminders appropriate to the step too, e.g. avoid parallax error when measuring out the liquid; before starting, check that the yeast bubbles in warm water.

 

Anyone else have criteria that they use?

 

Also, this may be a pipe dream but I would love to be able to post-mortem failed demonstrations with others who had the domain knowledge, or BTDT (been there, done that) to know what went wrong even though they weren't physically there.

 

I know the BFSU Yahoo group does have occasional discussions, but it would be nice to have a searchable database with more people contributing. Perhaps a subgroup on this forum with threads describing the experiments, e.g. "Plants need light: Plants in closet vs. plants by window" and any failures are posted there (and hopefully successful retrials, so we know we found the pesky variable).

Edited September 15, 2012 by leeyeewah

[jeninok]

Ruth, I could listen to you talk about science all day long :D Especially about the difference between an experiment and a demonstration.

 

 

I agree!

[2_girls_mommy]

Nature observation can be taught very simply by making the kids sit outside sans electronics for 15 minutes per day in the same spot all year round and record their observations in a journal.

 

I like this idea. We are in a biology year. This might be a good thing to add. Thanks.

[kbpaulie]

Thanks all. Liz, your post was great. Except, I want to look at it and say, "Yeah, but....":tongue_smilie: (And probably finish it w/ it SHOULD work. :001_huh:)

 

Like how did the light bulb ever get invented? If it were at our house we would have gotten the right filament, but it wouldn't have worked. So then we would have kept trying w/ something else and never ended up with a light bulb b/c we didn't get it to light up when it should have.

 

And HOW do you know when your experiment didn't work? Like obviously I know for sugar crystals and plants molding, but for other things.... how do you know????

 

I think these may be rhetorical questions showing my frustration. How do children of parents like me ever end up in science fields or liking science? Thank goodness there is a God with a plan despite me.;)

[lewelma]

it SHOULD work. :001_huh:..HOW do you know when your experiment didn't work?

 

What are you really trying to teach with your science activities in general? And what is your specific purpose for each and every one you do? Seriously, why are you doing them? If you are just going through the motions because some activity is in some curriculum, your kids are not likely learning *anything* because the activities don't work and you have no idea how to make them work. I would be frustrated to.

 

I think you need to change your goals. First, never do a science activity unless you think it is worthwhile. It could be worthwhile because:

 

1) your kids really don't understand the concept and need to see it performed before them to internalize the idea. For example, dropping a heavy ball and a light ball and seeing them land at the same time. Kind of counter intuitive. But watching a plant grow? Um, I think your kid knows that plants grow.

 

2) you might want to show your kids something that they have never seen before so have no intuitive idea as to what to expect. For example, watching the baby root emerge out of a seed, you just don't see this because it is underground.

 

3) you might want to teach your kids to use a tool, like a microscope.

 

4) you might want them to test an idea of their own. To make a hypothesis, to really think about HOW they can answer their question objectively, to collect data carefully, to design effective tables and graphs, to interpret their results, to identify their hidden assumptions, and to suggest future work. (this is really the end goal, I have shown how this process works here: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=361740 )

 

5) you might want them to make observations of their world. To notice what has always been there but that they never spent the time to study. For example, the position of the moon in the sky throughout the day and how it correlates to its phase.

 

But if you are doing what I call "wizz bang" activities. Then, just don't bother. They are like a magic show, and like a magician you need lots of practice to pull it off. I never do these activities. Things like mentos in coke. What in the world is this teaching? I don't even know what chemical reaction is occurring. How does it apply to their life? How would they use that methodology in any other science experiment? They just couldn't. It is a magic show. When my kids find wizz-bang activities in a book and want to do them, I tell them that I will get the materials but that they will have to figure out how to do it, because I am just. not. interested.

 

If the science activity is worth doing, then it is worth making the effort to get it right if it fails the first time. I brainstorm problems and look stuff up on the internet. You can even post here, and people can tell you what to try. But then you need to expect that most science activities that you try to do are going to take you 3 or more attempts to make them happen. And it might be over a series of weeks. And let me be clear, you do not want science activities to be all about waiting for mom to figure out what went wrong and then watching her run a beautiful demonstration. What does that teach? It teaches all the wrong lessons.

 

As far as I am concerned, science activities are supposed to be like writing a really difficult essay. You try one way, you try another, you brainstorm, you try more than one technique, you get others' opinions, you go back and edit some more, and you finally you finish the essay. Sometimes you get a good essay and sometimes you really don't like what you produce. But the process of writing, rewriting, and editing teach you about how to write and how to structure your thoughts. In contrast, science activities are NOT like long division, where the goal is to learn the technique and then you do it over and over again until you are fast. There is always a right answer and your goal is to get it. No No No. This is not what science is about. (Ok, I am not a language person so my similes may not be very good. :tongue_smilie: but I am trying to get you to think about science education differently.)

 

So my suggestion to you is THINK about each activity you are considering, and decide if it will help *your* student be a better scientist. And don't forget a scientist is a person who asks questions and finds a way to answer them. If your kids want a magic show, then take them to the circus, but use the time you have set aside for scientific inquiry to teach them to problem solve and to develop persistence. You need to change your attitude as the teacher. You *want* things to go wrong, so that you have the opportunity to teach what you are really supposed to be teaching in science.

 

HTH,

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited September 16, 2012 by lewelma

[Incognito]

I worked in a couple of research labs - in one, experiments were designed so that we learned something no matter the outcome. In the other, we were trying to get certain results.

 

I think you want to aim for learning no matter the outcome. Ask questions that you want to answer. Consider the possible answers. Try really REALLY hard to make sure there is only one variable being tested at a time (so your results are clear).

 

HTH

 

Tjej

[Chrysalis Academy]

What are you really trying to teach with your science activities in general? And what is your specific purpose for each and every one you do? Seriously, why are you doing them? If you are just going through the motions because some activity is in some curriculum, your kids are not likely learning *anything* because the activities don't work and you have no idea how to make them work. I would be frustrated to.

 

I think you need to change your goals. First, never do a science activity unless you think it is worthwhile. It could be worthwhile because:

 

1) your kids really don't understand the concept and need to see it performed before them to internalize the idea. For example, dropping a heavy ball and a light ball and seeing them land at the same time. Kind of counter intuitive. But watching a plant grow? Um, I think your kid knows that plants grow.

 

2) you might want to show your kids something that they have never seen before so have no intuitive idea as to what to expect. For example, watching the baby root emerge out of a seed, you just don't see this because it is underground.

 

3) you might want to teach your kids to use a tool, like a microscope.

 

4) you might want them to test an idea of their own. To make a hypothesis, to really think about HOW they can answer their question objectively, to collect data carefully, to design effective tables and graphs, to interpret their results, to identify their hidden assumptions, and to suggest future work. (this is really the end goal, I have shown how this process works here: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=361740 )

 

5) you might want them to make observations of their world. To notice what has always been there but that they never spent the time to study. For example, the position of the moon in the sky throughout the day and how it correlates to its phase.

 

But if you are doing what I call "wizz bang" activities. Then, just don't bother. They are like a magic show, and like a magician you need lots of practice to pull it off. I never do these activities. Things like mentos in coke. What in the world is this teaching? I don't even know what chemical reaction is occurring. How does it apply to their life? How would they use that methodology in any other science experiment? They just couldn't. It is a magic show. When my kids find wizz-bang activities in a book and want to do them, I tell them that I will get the materials but that they will have to figure out how to do it, because I am just. not. interested.

 

If the science activity is worth doing, then it is worth making the effort to get it right if it fails the first time. I brainstorm problems and look stuff up on the internet. You can even post here, and people can tell you what to try. But then you need to expect that most science activities that you try to do are going to take you 3 or more attempts to make them happen. And it might be over a series of weeks. And let me be clear, you do not want science activities to be all about waiting for mom to figure out what went wrong and then watching her run a beautiful demonstration. What does that teach? It teaches all the wrong lessons.

 

As far as I am concerned, science activities are supposed to be like writing a really difficult essay. You try one way, you try another, you brainstorm, you try more than one technique, you get others' opinions, you go back and edit some more, and you finally you finish the essay. Sometimes you get a good essay and sometimes you really don't like what you produce. But the process of writing, rewriting, and editing teach you about how to write and how to structure your thoughts. In contrast, science activities are NOT like long division, where the goal is to learn the technique and then you do it over and over again until you are fast. There is always a right answer and your goal is to get it. No No No. This is not what science is about. (Ok, I am not a language person so my similes may not be very good. :tongue_smilie: but I am trying to get you to think about science education differently.)

 

So my suggestion to you is THINK about each activity you are considering, and decide if it will help *your* student be a better scientist. And don't forget a scientist is a person who asks questions and finds a way to answer them. If your kids want a magic show, then take them to the circus, but use the time you have set aside for scientific inquiry to teach them to problem solve and to develop persistence. You need to change your attitude as the teacher. You *want* things to go wrong, so that you have the opportunity to teach what you are really supposed to be teaching in science.

 

HTH,

 

Ruth in NZ

 

:iagree:

 

How's the book coming, Ruth?? :D;)

 

Seriously, I think what is wrong with almost every single science curriculum I've seen, both hs curricula and in ps, is this basic, fundamental disconnect between what the kid is doing, and why the kid is doing it. Most "experiments" are just whiz-bangs, or demos, or random time-fillers. Why do we do these????? I agree so deeply with Ruth: for each and every activity, ask yourself *why* you are doing it, and what the goal is. What will the children learn from this activity?

 

And don't, please don't, do something and call it an "experiment" if it isn't one!!! How will you know? Well, one clue is that if the curriculum, book, or whatever hasn't first clearly explained the scientific method, what an experiment is, how to form and test a hypothesis, etc. then they aren't doing an experiment. Call it a demo, or whatever, but it is not an experiment. It drives me absolutely nuts that about 90% of the books in the library that are supposed to be about science fair projects/"experiments" are just long lists of demo projects, without an effort to teach the student about scientific experimentation. From what I have seen, a lot of curricula are this way too, or tend to be used/misused in this way.

 

Ok, stepping off the soap box now . . . :001_smile:

[Amy M]

I needed this post today. I'm so glad I'm not the only one. I was doing a popcorn experiment today trying to see how many kernels out of 10 popped within 20 seconds of the first pop. I ended up with a ball of fire in the popcorn popper when the oil caught fire. Needless to say I threw the popper on the deck because it smelled awful, it's now blackened and I owe my husband a new one. I looked at the kids and said, that's how to start oil on fire....science is over. :tongue_smilie:

:smilielol5: :grouphug: Thank you for the humorous moment of the day!

[gardening momma]

Ruth, Rose, leeyeewah, anyone else... do you have science curriculum or other books that you'd recommend that teach science in the way you've discussed in this thread? (ones that do a better job differentiating between demo & experiment, for example)

[Chrysalis Academy]

Well, we're planning on doing real experiments (i.e. science fair projects) in exactly the way Ruth described in her amazing threads. It's good to spend some time before you start that process talking about what science experiments are, and for that there are a number of resources depending on the child's age - a couple I have on my shelf are How to Think Like a Scientist by Kramer (for the kids and you), and the first chapter of Creepy Crawlies and the Scientific Method (for you to read and digest). The Happy Scientist has a pretty good introductory unit on The Scientific Method that you could watch and discuss together, too. What is critical is to talk about this stuff, and understand it, *before* starting to do any "experiments."

 

As to science curricula in general - one of the things I really like about BFSU is that it doesn't have you do a bunch of pseudo-experiments. Its teaching method rests on helping the child make relevant *observations* and then to think about what those observations mean. So sometimes you might do a demo, or build a model, so that you can make observations and think about them, but you don't do canned experiments just for the sake of it. So this is an approach that I really like, and that fits well with what we've been talking about. Put these demos/models & the relevant observations together with one or two real experiments each year, and you have a pretty amazing science curriculum, IMO.

 

Here is an illustrative quote from BFSU Vol. 2:

 

 

"Real science is when kids observe for themselves, become curious about one or another aspect, raise questions, and seek answers through further observation, which may or may not involve experimentation. Vast areas of science are based on observation with little or no experimentation involved. Consider: anatomy (that of both plants and animals down through cell structure), taxonomy (the classification of living things), astronomy, geology, ecology, archeology, and others. To be sure, experimental evidence may contribute additional information and support, but even with experimentation observation remains at the heart. . .

 

 

 

 

Along the way of constructing the pieces (individual observations) into a larger picture of understanding, experimentation may come into play. Does it work this way, or that way? Does “A” lead to “B,” or does “B” lead to “A?” We may be able to conduct a test (experiment) to find out. Still, making first-hand observations, questioning, and applying rational thought remain at the heart of not just science, but every other field

of endeavor as well. " (Nebel, BFSU Vol. 2, p. xx)

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a card-carrying scientist (PhD in cognitive neuroscience, and now a working ecologist - long story), and in neither of these fields are experiments, the kind you would do in physics or molecular biology, common. But they do rely on observation, questioniong, and applying rational thought. I want my kids to learn these things, too.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2012 by rroberts707

[lewelma]

do you have science curriculum or other books that you'd recommend that teach science in the way you've discussed in this thread? (ones that do a better job differentiating between demo & experiment, for example)

 

I wish I could recommend something to you. I think this is why board members have asked me to write a book. :001_smile: I just use lots of different science textbooks, lab books, and curricula and pick out what would help my kids to learn.

 

I thought it might help to see an example of how I pick and choose. We are doing chemistry this year. I own some basic wizz-bang books that have a few good ideas in them including: Fizz, bubble, and flash and 150 captivating chemistry experiments using household substances. And I own 3 curriculum: The Elements, RS4K chemistry, and IGCSE Chemistry. (For general knowledge, I rely heavily on the library.)

 

So let me start with IGCSE Chemistry. My oldest son needs to memorize a bunch of reactions like 2Mg + O2 =>2MgO . These are processes he has never seen before. My goal is for him to have a movie in his mind of the burning of Magnesium, just like he would be able to visualize the moon's different phases if we were studying astronomy. It is just so much easier to understand explanations if you have seen the process, otherwise it is very abstract. So we go on Youtube and watch many different reactions. I have him watch them numerous times over the period of weeks and I quiz him, "can you see that reaction?" If he can't remember it, we watch it again. My goal here is VERY clear. I am not trying to teach lab technique or experimental design or accuracy; instead I am showing him something he has never seen before because it is basically hidden from the everyday person.

 

My older ds also needs to learn how to use real chemistry equipment. The goal is to develop technical skills. What is the function/purpose of all the different glassware? When do you use what? What safety equipment and procedures do you need to follow? Can you measure and pour accurately? Can you keep track of your results by organizing test tubes or color coding things? I have no interest in setting up a lab in my house at this stage, so I am paying for my older son to go to a homeschool chemistry lab class taught at the university over a few days. I do NOT expect him to learn experiment design there -- there would just not be time. And he is probably not going to be very frustrated by the activities because those lab classes need to run efficiently because they are renting the lab space. Thus, there is not time to really muck around. So my goals for this setting are the ones listed above. What this means is that I must make up the shortfalls here at home, specifically I need to teach 1) frustration/problem solving/ persistence and 2) experimental design.

 

Teaching frustration/problem solving/persistence: Last week in The Elements we hit a hands-on activity of the electrolysis of water. So, I ask myself, what will they learn IF I choose to do this lab. We can easily watch this on youtube, but is this a lab that I can easily set up in my house? The answer is yes, all I need is 2 pencils, copper wire, and batteries. So, the goals of this activity is to 1) teach them how to follow directions, 2) teach them how to problem solve when it doesn't work at first, 3) teach them persistence because these things typically don't work easily, 4) teach them observation skills, 5) teach them that water does separate into H and O, 6) lastly, teach them to do an "armchair experiment" to determine which electrode has H vs O bubbling off of it. So did I meet my goals? YES. It took *them* more than an hour to make it work; they got incredibly frustrated and had to do a LOT of problem solving. a) the battery was dead, so older son had realize that it was the battery and not the setup, and then find a little light bulb to test it, b) the wires kept popping off of the pencils, so they had to develop a way to twist them to stay on, c) ds the older was so excited and frustrated that his hands were shaking, and he could not connect anything together. He had to learn to take a break, get a glass of water, and start again. I stepped in a few times to make sure that the whole assembly was not thrown out the window, and reminded them that science is difficult etc. Overall, a very effective lab.

 

Teaching experimental design: My goals for this kind of activity are clear: my kids need to learn how to ask a good question, how to design an experiment (with replication and controls), how to design a table and graphs that summarize the information (this is often harder than you expect), how to interpret the data, how to find the hidden assumptions and errors, and how to write all this down in an organized fashion. I often use simple demos and create experiments out of them. Demo: vinegar dissolves Calcium out of chicken bones. Experiment: Which vinegar (red, white, cidar) dissolves calcium out of chicken bones faster? Demo: diapers absorb fluid. Experiment: Which diaper brand absorbs more fluid? Demo: making silly putty with glue, borax, and cornstarch. Experiment: What combination of these 3 ingredients makes the most pliable or bounceable silly putty? Notice that is really not too hard to make certain types of demos into experiments. I don't know the answer to the experimental questions and neither do they. But be warned, real experiments take time. I typically expect hours spread over at least 2 weeks. Also, I require a write up of the hypothesis, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. I have found that the write up takes as long as the entire experiment. So a 1 hour experiment takes 1 hour to write up, and a 1 week experiment takes 1 week to write up. For my ds's science fair project last year, 5 weeks of experimentation took 5 weeks to write up!!!

 

I probably should describe how I decide an activity is not going to teach my kids anything, but I really have to go start school. :001_smile:

 

Hope this gives you a feel for the evaluation process I go through,

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited September 16, 2012 by lewelma

[Pen]

I wish I could recommend something to you. I think this is why board members have asked me to write a book. :001_smile: I just use lots of different science textbooks, lab books, and curricula and pick out what would help my kids to learn.

 

I thought it might help to see an example of how I pick and choose. We are doing chemistry this year. I own some basic wizz-bang books that have a few good ideas in them including: Fizz, bubble, and flash and 150 captivating chemistry experiments using household substances. And I own 3 curriculum: The Elements, RS4K chemistry, and IGCSE Chemistry. (For general knowledge, I rely heavily on the library.)

 

So let me start with IGCSE Chemistry. My oldest son needs to memorize a bunch of reactions like 2Mg + O2 =>2MgO . These are processes he has never seen before. My goal is for him to have a movie in his mind of the burning of Magnesium, just like he would be able to visualize the moon's different phases if we were studying astronomy. It is just so much easier to understand explanations if you have seen the process, otherwise it is very abstract. So we go on Youtube and watch many different reactions. I have him watch them numerous times over the period of weeks and I quiz him, "can you see that reaction?" If he can't remember it, we watch it again. My goal here is VERY clear. I am not trying to teach lab technique or experimental design or accuracy; instead I am showing him something he has never seen before because it is basically hidden from the everyday person.

 

My older ds also needs to learn how to use real chemistry equipment. The goal is to develop technical skills. What is the function/purpose of all the different glassware? When do you use what? What safety equipment and procedures do you need to follow? Can you measure and pour accurately? Can you keep track of your results by organizing test tubes or color coding things? I have no interest in setting up a lab in my house at this stage, so I am paying for my older son to go to a homeschool chemistry lab class taught at the university over a few days. I do NOT expect him to learn experiment design there -- there would just not be time. And he is probably not going to be very frustrated by the activities because those lab classes need to run efficiently because they are renting the lab space. Thus, there is not time to really muck around. So my goals for this setting are the ones listed above. What this means is that I must make up the shortfalls here at home, specifically I need to teach 1) frustration/problem solving/ persistence and 2) experimental design.

 

Teaching frustration/problem solving/persistence: Last week in The Elements we hit a hands-on activity of the electrolysis of water. So, I ask myself, what will they learn IF I choose to do this lab. We can easily watch this on youtube, but is this a lab that I can easily set up in my house? The answer is yes, all I need is 2 pencils, copper wire, and batteries. So, the goals of this activity is to 1) teach them how to follow directions, 2) teach them how to problem solve when it doesn't work at first, 3) teach them persistence because these things typically don't work easily, 4) teach them observation skills, 5) teach them that water does separate into H and O, 6) lastly, teach them to do an "armchair experiment" to determine which electrode has H vs O bubbling off of it. So did I meet my goals? YES. It took *them* more than an hour to make it work; they got incredibly frustrated and had to do a LOT of problem solving. a) the battery was dead, so older son had realize that it was the battery and not the setup, and then find a little light bulb to test it, b) the wires kept popping off of the pencils, so they had to develop a way to twist them to stay on, c) ds the older was so excited and frustrated that his hands were shaking, and he could not connect anything together. He had to learn to take a break, get a glass of water, and start again. I stepped in a few times to make sure that the whole assembly was not thrown out the window, and reminded them that science is difficult etc. Overall, a very effective lab.

 

Teaching experimental design: My goals for this kind of activity are clear: my kids need to learn how to ask a good question, how to design an experiment (with replication and controls), how to design a table and graphs that summarize the information (this is often harder than you expect), how to interpret the data, how to find the hidden assumptions and errors, and how to write all this down in an organized fashion. I often use simple demos and create experiments out of them. Demo: vinegar dissolves Calcium out of chicken bones. Experiment: Which vinegar (red, white, cidar) dissolves calcium out of chicken bones faster? Demo: diapers absorb fluid. Experiment: Which diaper brand absorbs more fluid? Demo: making silly putty with glue, borax, and cornstarch. Experiment: What combination of these 3 ingredients makes the most pliable or bounceable silly putty? Notice that is really not too hard to make certain types of demos into experiments. I don't know the answer to the experimental questions and neither do they. But be warned, real experiments take time. I typically expect hours spread over at least 2 weeks. Also, I require a write up of the hypothesis, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. I have found that the write up takes as long as the entire experiment. So a 1 hour experiment takes 1 hour to write up, and a 1 week experiment takes 1 week to write up. For my ds's science fair project last year, 5 weeks of experimentation took 5 weeks to write up!!!

 

I probably should describe how I decide an activity is not going to teach my kids anything, but I really have to go start school. :001_smile:

 

Hope this gives you a feel for the evaluation process I go through,

 

Ruth in NZ

 

This is a wonderful post thank you!!!

 

May I ask how you find the wonderful things on You Tube? I sometimes find great things, but also a lot of junk. I usually have only rural dial-up internet and cannot get You Tube at all, so I get only limited time to look for the good stuff when I have access to high speed for about an hour per week. I'd like to be able to go with a flash drive and download a bunch of great things to then play at home.

[Pen]

...

But for example, if you put seeds in the fridge, cabinet and window sill and trying to determine which one will grow fastest, and all but the ones in the cabinet rot, we didn't get the "right" answer, and how would my kids ever learn what the "right" answer was if it weren't for me saying, well, this is what SHOULD have happened.....

 

...

 

How do you teach when these things happen?

If I were doing this as an experiment, I wouldn't assume a correct answer, but would rather note what happened and try it a few more times, perhaps changing a few things with different seed samples. If I kept getting a particular result after many trials, I'd try to figure out why, and what it meant.

 

Sometimes what is supposed to happen is not correct for all situations.

For example, I have dealt with situations where seeds were supposed to do best on a sun side situation, but those instructions may have come from a part of the world that was cooler than where I was, and my true results may have been that where I was (say, Texas) they needed to be seeded in shade to do best.

 

Some types of seeds have different needs than others also. So for example if one were dealing with a seed that needed dark to germinate it might well do better in a cupboard. Amount of moisture also would be a big factor. Etc.

 

We've been trying to tell if a catapult actually does shoot farthest when set to a 45 degree angle--so far, it doesn't actually seem to be doing that (around 35 degrees seems to be doing better). My inclination is to try it a number of times, record the results, analyze them and the various things that could be affecting the results, but the final conclusion will be what ds actually finds, at least for this catapult as used, not what "should" be. In the catapult situation I am pretty sure that the reason we get a different result than the materials say we will is that the initial force is not consistent, and that it is easier to apply more force with the smaller angle. We are in essence getting a different lesson than what, in this case, Thames and Kosmos say. (Did they actually test this themselves, I wonder, or just assume what "should" happen would?)