I received the following email from a reader of this blog:

Hi Peter – I have a professional question for you as a teacher, a parent, and a science guru…

Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate for a 5th grade (kids age 10) teacher to show her class a series of YouTube movies about the theory that the US astronauts did NOT land on the moon back in the 1960′s?  This is during a unit on Astronomy.

I know my own take on it – I just wanted to see what you thought/think?

-Amy

Thank you for the question Amy. Here is my answer….

First, it is difficult to know the motivation of the teacher for showing this. If she had expertise in the space program and she was presenting these non-scientific ideas to show how science and logic can refute them, I would say excellent.

But alas, I suspect this was not the case. More likely the teacher heard of the allegations that the landing on the Moon was a fraud, and was interested enough to read the allegations, without spending the time to look deeper. Sharing just the allegations with students through YouTube videos is not, in my opinion, what a teacher of science should do.

I still remember my parents waking me up from bed and leading me downstairs to the playroom to watch the astronauts landing on the Moon. The NASA accomplishment helped Americans realize the importance of science and technology, and for many children, it ignited more interest in science.

Of course there are so many lunar landing conspiracy theories throwing up so many trial balloons, that it would take a team of scientists a lifetime to keep shooting them all down. Some are easy to dismiss. “Hey, the US flag is blowing in the wind and there is no air on the moon. It’s a fake!” Although I don’t remember much as a 9 year old, I remember the announcers making the point that since there was no air or wind, NASA put wires into the flag to hold it up.

Then there is the logical question, why can’t we just point a telescope at the places where they landed so we can see if their stuff is there?

But according to NASA, “The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide.” We will someday have probes and people return to the moon that will confirm the existence of these leftover materials. You might think that would put it all to rest but guess what? This is already anticipated by the conspiracy theorists, who say, well un-manned vessels could have put the materials there.

If it was a hoax, you would think the fewer people involved the better. Why not pretend to go just once, instead of nine times so less people are involved? There are 12 astronauts that walked on the moon, who indicated it really happened. There are hundreds of other NASA personnel who also say the same thing. From personal accounts to moon rocks, the evidence suggests this did happen.

I can’t take the time to research all the theories and all the counter-arguments. But in my mind, science is so rarely taught in elementary classrooms, that it is a sin to spend science instructional time on pseudo-science via YouTube videos. Let’s spend time helping students learn about science and the contributions it has made.

Resources

Adaptive Curriculum’s Activity Object, “Make a Telescope: See the Moon.”

BadAstronomy.com. “Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax“ (Air Date: February 13, 2001)

Mythbusters Episode 104: “NASA Moon Landing” (Air Date: August 27, 2008)

Redzero. “MoonHoax”

               “Teaching means creating situations where structure can be discovered.” –Jean Piaget

Many science teachers struggle with the idea of free exploration. Free exploration takes advantage of the natural tendency for children to just mess around with materials, without following any rigid procedures. If you have ever watched a child playing in sand, you have seen free exploration.

I have observed some preservice teachers struggle with a hands-on science lesson because they pass out the materials to the children and then they try to explain what they should do with them. More experienced teachers know that once children start to interact with the materials, they begin to tune the teacher out. A better strategy, therefore, is to explain to the children all that they need to know before passing out the materials.

Free exploration purposely allows students to mess around with the materials. It is a shame that for so many teachers, science experiences are always canned (first do this, and then do this). I have no objections to well articulated experiences that lead to discovery, but students also need opportunities to mess about. Each time they change something and see the result, they are developing ideas and approaches that will deepen their abilities to design and understand experiments.

The virtual world can be a great place to mess around without causing a great mess! The activity object, “Space Objects Interaction Explorer,” presents a great canvas to mess around with. Students are presented with two celestial objects, larger than the other. By changing the size and direction of the arrow, they control their initial velocities. Then they hit the play button and the objects move according to their initial velocities, and their motion is immediately influenced by gravity. Lines are drawn as the planets move so the orbital paths are evident.

Experienced teachers also are aware that challenges can really keep students engaged, such as with GEM’s Bubble-ology, where the teacher walks around and says, “Okay, let’s see who can produce the largest bubble!” or “Wow, great! Now, can you blow a bubble within a bubble?”

In “Space Objects Interaction Explorer,” the first challenge is easy. Make the objects collide. A fiery explosion rewards success, but there is no big bang—of course, contrary to Hollywood misconceptions, sound does not travel in the vacuum of outer space.

The second challenge is to make the smaller object orbit the bigger one. Most children can’t do this at first, but neither can most adults. It is interesting that most adults know what an orbit is, but they can’t at first produce one. It is very different being able to define the term orbit versus being able to explain why an object orbits another. Through trial-and-error learning, both children and adults can get one object to orbit the other—and develop intuitive ideas about orbits.

Inevitably, the first orbit produced by the learner is not a circle but an elliptical orbit. The third challenge is to achieve a circular orbit. When this task is completed it helps students really understand that orbits are an interplay between velocity (moving tangentially to the orbit) and gravitational interaction. Then, when orbits are explained, students have the experiences to understand why they occur.

 The fourth challenge involves three objects and asks that two of the objects orbit the largest one, which I will call the star. In putting this together, students (and adults) usually place one object closer and one farther from the star. And they initially make the farthest one have the bigger initial velocity. When they hit play, the nearest object crashes into the star and the larger object shoots out of the star system. Through trial-and-error learning, students will get it right, and later when they learn that Mercury is the fastest moving planet, it isn’t just an isolated fact to be memorized, but becomes an example of a concept they already know.

The last challenge is, appropriately enough, the most difficult to achieve. Appropriate because the really smart kids that solved the other challenges with great speed are fully engaged as everyone else catches up. The challenge is to make the small object orbit the medium object as the medium object orbits the largest object, or in other words, they are challenged to create a moon that orbits a planet, while the planet orbits the star. Students can, of course, adjust the position and velocity of the objects, as well as their masses. Success with this challenge isn’t easy and it takes a lot of messing about, but it is fun to see the interactions and patterns drawn of the paths followed. And when success arrives, it feels sweet!

References:

Adaptive Curriculum. (accessed August 7, 2008). Space Objects Interaction Explorer. https://www.adaptivecurriculum.com/us/details/USSSM150202

Barber, J. (1987) Bubble-ology (Great Explorations in Math and Science). Berkeley: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California. http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/gems/

Hawkins, D. (1965). Messing about in science. Science and Children, 2(5), 5-9.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child’s Conception of Space. New York: W. W. Norton.