Our first unit in sixth grade is entitled, "How do we, as scientists, know something?" It is largely focused on how scientists do experiments/make observations to generate evidence, how to construct knowledge based upon evidence, and how to communicate about what you've figured out. In order to learn this, we grapple with the question of whether or not heavier or lighter things will land first when dropped. We drop tennis balls filled with different amounts of weight (I do tennis ball surgery on them) off of the balcony outside of my classroom and time how long it takes them to reach the ground.
This particular experiment is a really great one for learning about experiments and scientific thinking because of several reasons.
This particular experiment is a really great one for learning about experiments and scientific thinking because of several reasons.
- Kids almost always think that heavier objects (of the same size, shape, and material) will land first. In fact, they basically will SWEAR that it is true. Last year a kid told me that his dad told him this fact and his dad is never wrong and that's how he knows. It is so fun for me (and really eye-opening for them) when their thinking is blown out of the water!
- Even kids who already know how it will turn out are challenged to organize the experiment in a way that actually proves what they already know. This is tricky as we are planning an experiment with 22 kids involved where everyone needs to have a job.
- We can have a lot of conversations about variables because kids have to get to the idea that the only thing that can be different about the objects being dropped is the mass.
- If you're a sixth grader, it is really fun to drop things off of the balcony.
We have spent several days arguing, discussing, convincing, and wondering about the best way to do this experiment. As this is the first formal experiment that we've ever done, I give them the basic procedure, but they decide things like:
How is doing an experiment like this different from just doing any old science experiment, you ask? Well, I've started to see my role as the teacher really differently in this process, is one of the main things.
- How many tests should we do?
- How many timers should we have per ball?
- How shall we record the data?
How is doing an experiment like this different from just doing any old science experiment, you ask? Well, I've started to see my role as the teacher really differently in this process, is one of the main things.
It often feels to me like there is a feeling that inquiry-based teaching is a 'free-for-all' where kids are just willy-nilly "stumbling upon" academic content. A teacher I met told me that they really didn't like inquiry because it was too free and there was no structure and kids just got play around and maybe learn something. I want to dispel this myth. Though it might seem like there is a bit of chaos in my class sometimes, the learning in my class is actually highly structured and scaffolded.
- The learning targets are very carefully chosen, named, and linked back to assessment criteria.
- Every learning experience in the unit links directly to the summative assessment task.
- The daily learning has been examined through the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model to determine how much teacher support is needed at that particular time.
My class self-constructed the idea of HUMAN ERROR by responding to the question "How sure are you that our data is believable?" They each gave a percentage for how believable they thought it was and taught themselves the ideas of precision and accuracy in data collection. Kids then suggested how we might decrease the HUMAN ERROR and we re-planned our experiment accordingly.
Doesn't inquiry learning take more time?
Yes and no. Though doing an experiment in this open way with a lot of discussion might initially take longer, the payoff is worth it. This is a prime example of 'start slow to go fast' and because of the time invested in discovering how to plan/do an experiment instead of just being told, a lot less time has to be used later for re-teaching. This is a clear case of prioritizing content/skills in terms of time allotment. Understanding how to correctly plan and do experiments, assess results, and talk about your findings are foundational skills in science. And, as foundational skills, the large time allocation is important as this is the kind of thing kids will be doing for the rest of their school careers, including university level science classes. We don't 'discover' everything in my class, there are times when I do some direct instruction. Choosing the best instructional strategy for each target is part of the prioritizing. I know that students will remember things better when they construct meaning through inquiry (guided and open inquiry) and so for those parts that are in the 40 years section of the 40-40-40 model (what should we remember in 40 days, 40 months, 40 years), the increased time investment is completely worth it.
I'm excited to see how our second (and sometimes third) iterations of the experiments go. Stay tuned.
Yes and no. Though doing an experiment in this open way with a lot of discussion might initially take longer, the payoff is worth it. This is a prime example of 'start slow to go fast' and because of the time invested in discovering how to plan/do an experiment instead of just being told, a lot less time has to be used later for re-teaching. This is a clear case of prioritizing content/skills in terms of time allotment. Understanding how to correctly plan and do experiments, assess results, and talk about your findings are foundational skills in science. And, as foundational skills, the large time allocation is important as this is the kind of thing kids will be doing for the rest of their school careers, including university level science classes. We don't 'discover' everything in my class, there are times when I do some direct instruction. Choosing the best instructional strategy for each target is part of the prioritizing. I know that students will remember things better when they construct meaning through inquiry (guided and open inquiry) and so for those parts that are in the 40 years section of the 40-40-40 model (what should we remember in 40 days, 40 months, 40 years), the increased time investment is completely worth it.
I'm excited to see how our second (and sometimes third) iterations of the experiments go. Stay tuned.