I was teaching a middle school lesson on static electricity on Halloween so I dressed up as “StaticElectricity.” We did the usual activities with balloons, such as picking up paper, rice crispies, and coffee grounds. I used water balloons, but of course, we filled them with air. I liked their shape better, but some students had difficulty blowing them up. One variation that one of my university students found was to draw two circles on opposite sides of a balloon. After that, one side was rubbed on hair, and the other was not. Students could accurately predict that the circle rubbed would pick up stuff, but most did not accurately predict about the other circle. It didn’t pick up anything, as the balloon was an insulator and the charges stayed where they were placed.

I found a good applet on static electricity. It is from PhET, the makers of The Circuit Construction Kit, which I positively reviewed in a previous blog. It is fine for a teacher to demonstrate that electrons move but positive charges do not, however, as a student activity it has limited potential. When you start, the balloon has no net charge. When you rub it on the wool sweater the balloon picks up electrons (shown in blue) and the sweater loses electrons. Now the balloon will stick to the sweater because positive and negative charges attract. if you move the balloon towards the wall it repels the electrons in the wall and it sticks to the wall. 

Other Resources for Static Electricity

Adaptive Curriculum’s Activity Object “Electric Force“ 

Kurtus, Ron. (2008). “Basics of Static Electricity.”

NASA, “Cling On“

The Circuit Construction Kit (CCK) is a great electricity resource for middle grade and high school students to conduct science investigations and learn about electricity. This FREE resource allows students to produce simple circuits using cells, light bulbs, resistors, and switches. Students can complete series and parallel circuits and they can observe the varying brightness of the light bulbs. CCK also allows students to move into the quantitative realm. Clicking on some additional buttons enables voltmeters and ammeters, and thus measurements of voltage and current can enhance investigations.

Well equipped elementary and middle schools will have batteries, light bulbs, switches, and wires to give students real experiences in constructing circuits. CCK can compliment the physical activities with virtual activities to enhance understanding. Unfortunatley, many schools will not have these physical resources so CCK is a way to help students explore electricity. And, I have not yet come across elementary or middle schools that have class sets of ammeters or voltmeters, so this is a welcome component.

Putting CCK to use

With my middle grade students we are using CCK to discover how to make series and parallel circuits, how to use ammeters and voltmeters, how current and voltage vary in different types of circuits, what are short circuits, and to observe that the ratio voltage/current is equal to resistance (Ohm’s Law).

Of course, the possibilities of how to use CCK are vast. Teacher goals, creativity, and experience level will make this a great resource in some classrooms. Most high school physics teachers will be able to instantly employ this tool. I wish that there were more structured lesson plans for using this tool at the elementary and middle school level so that teachers who are not yet comfortable with electricity could help their students have meaningful experiences. Some lessons can be found at the teaching idea page but these are almost all high school and university lessons.

The diagram above is one of the circuits I asked my middle grade students to construct. Then using a non-contact ammeter, they measured the current through all the branches of the circuit. They later used the voltmeter to measure the voltage across each of the branches.

Reflections in teaching

Working with middle school students, I found that they had few problems in using CCK. We started off constructing real circuits and then reproducing them in CCK where they used the ammeter to measure current at different places in the circuit. Although I know the importance of “free exploration” and wrote about it before in this blog, my regret is that I didn’t allow for free exploration with this virtual tool. Students really wanted to explore lots of things on their own, without me specifying what circuits to create. So, I should have allowed time for this before directing their explorations.

The Circuit Construction Kit is a simple but powerful tool that has a lot of utility in the upper elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms. It is a rich environment for free exploration and it presents many possibilities for guided-inquiry investigations.

Ever since, and probably before, Robert Yager’s (1983) study that suggested the amount of new vocabulary in science textbooks exceeded the number of vocabulary words for learning a foreign language, many educators have been concerned with the number of terms introduced in science classes and methods to help students learn vocabulary.

Recent reforms of state standards, starting with Project 2061, have hopefully reduced the amount of superficial knowledge we ask students to learn. Nevertheless, the new vocabulary can be daunting. The NCLB focus on math and English, with the consequential neglect of science in the elementary grades has resulted in many students entering the middle grades with deficits in their science vocabulary (Cunningham & Allington, 2007).

The teaching of vocabulary is the job of all teachers (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2002). The understanding of content vocabulary is, after all, an excellent predictor of success in the subject area (Wilcox 2006). While inquiry skills, concept development, and understanding are more important goals, students knowing and using key vocabulary are important outcomes of science education.

I recently discovered a tool to assist in vocabulary acquisition. Andrew Sutherland created Quizlet in 2005 when he was a 15 year-old student studying French vocabulary. From what I can tell, it has become a phenomenal success, with over 200,000 registered users. More than flashcards, Quizlet has activities in the following sections: (a) Familiarize, (b) Learn, (c) Test, (d) Play Scatter, and (e) Play Space Race. The great thing about Quizlet is it is all internet based, so there is no need to download and install software, which can be annoying in some situations and impossible in many schools.

Students can type in their own words and definitions and then learn them through a variety of activities. I also like, however, having access to the great repository of already prepared quizlets. For instance, I just taught a unit on magnetism in my son’s middle school classroom. If I would have discovered Quizlet sooner I might have assigned the quizlet on magnets to review for the test. As a parent, my other son (in third grade) had some vocabulary words to learn from his language arts book in the section “Pepita Talks Twice.” A few different quizlets for these words were already established. My son and I reviewed a few words on my iPhone on the way back from soccer practice.  

While we need to be mindful of reducing the “tyranny of terminology” that sometimes describes science courses, we must also help our students learn the key words. Quizlet is a free tool that can help students learn and use scientific vocabulary.

Resources

Adaptive Curriculum, Magnetic Field of  Magnet.  http://www.adaptivecurriculum.com/us/details/USSXP080401

Cunningham, P. M. & Allington, R. L.  (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wilcox, J. (2006). Chicago teachers learn to build academic vocabulary. ASCD Education Update 48 (6): 1–2.

Blachowicz, C., and P. Fisher. 2002. Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice- Hall.

Quizlet. http://quizlet.com/

Thelen, J. N. (1984). Improving reading in science.2nd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Yager, R. E. (1983). The Importance of Terminology in Teaching K-12 Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(6), 577-88. 

          Attempting to Avoid the Problem of the Student who Holds the Mouse Dominating the Activity.

Miguel and Gabriela discussed the type of borders they would erect in their panda habitat and then Miguel entered their selection into the Activity Object. They both were pleased with how their selection protected this endangered species. As they continued their explorations they deepened their understanding of ecosystems, communities, populations, species, and concepts to consider in designing protected habitats for endangered or threatened species.                                                                                                               

In the spring semester of 2008, I was part of a team evaluating the use of Adaptive Curriculum by middle school students in a low-SES school (89.2% free or reduced lunch) in Phoenix, AZ. The school had one laptop cart with 14 computers, so teachers had students doubled up, two to a laptop.

The two-students-to-a-computer environment worked for this particular school year. Ironically, last year it wouldn’t have worked. Class sizes were pushing 35 students, so it would have required some triples for the laptop cart. I was told the population of the school dramatically fell as a result of a new Arizona law requiring more stringent proof of immigration status to obtain employment.

Students seemed to work quite well in pairs using Adaptive Curriculum. As with Miguel and Gabriella, there were many good discussions observed between partners. But the lack of discussion is not as obvious, and there were situations where the old maxim of “he/she who controls the mouse tends to dominate the activity” probably applied.

Some simple things can be done to alleviate the one-student-dominating problem in the use of shared computers at school. For example, if one person controls the mouse, the other could control the keyboard. This presents a more cooperative situation, where hopefully sharing of control will lead to sharing of ideas and plans. If the computer activity is one where there is a greater use of the mouse than the keyboard, instructing students to switch roles after certain periods or segments could be helpful.

But why not have computers with two mice? Wouldn’t it be great if both partners had equal access? Sure they might try to get to things quicker than the other person, but it would make for lively interactions. Two-mice computers might even have specific activities designed for them, from cooperative tasks to competitive events. The two-mouse computer is not so useful in the business world, so that is why we don’t see them, but computers in schools should have hardware and accompanying software optimized for student learning. Two-mice computers should be an option. Just as surely as Miguel and Gabriella designed an effective habitat for the pandas, we should optimally design the learning environment and not just take what is given to us.

 References/Resources

Habitat Designer: Panda. Adaptive Curriculum.  http://www.adaptivecurriculum.com/us/details/USSSM190101

               “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.