The cameras on tablets work great for general picture taking, but they also can work as magnifiers and microscopes.

 
A good place to start is by placing additional lenses directly on the camera to see how it preforms. Low power loupes from 4x to 8x work for capturing detail in small objects, and magnifiers from 10x to 20x make for great close-ups.

 

 
Jewelers’ loupes are usually directional so consider the camera as the eye. This means that magnifiers might be placed on the camera upside-down compared to if you were looking at the camera through the magnifier.

 

 
Mini microscopes up to 40x can also be used, however the margin of error is fairly large, but much more portable than using a standard microscope.

 
Traditional stereomicroscopes and compound microscopes will work well with the tablet camera just as they will with a point-and-shoot digital camera.
The best way to experience the power of a magnified tablet camera is to take one for a spin. Just remember the following best practices:

1. The depth of field (what is in focus) is quite narrow so focus is critical. Many tablets will focus on a central spot in the image unless a different area is selected by touching the screen image where you want the camera to focus.
2. Stability is critical. The movement of the camera is magnified the same amount as the image.
3. The more light, the better, but tablet cameras are usually temperamental when light amounts change. Many cameras are also prone to bright spot washouts when spotlights or flashlights are used too close to the subject.
4. Lock the screen rotation to fix the shutter button. Otherwise the button will move around the screen as the tablet is tilted.
5. Some cameras will zoom when a pinch-out gesture is used on the screen. iPads have zooms on their back-side cameras, but not on the front (screen-side) cameras. The zoom is digital so zooming degrades the image. However, it can also reduce vignetting which may help to get a better exposure.
6. Take lots of pictures. First, they are digital and can easily be deleted. And second, practice makes perfect.

As Official Time-Keeper of the 2012 Olympic Games, Omega’s high-tech timing devices have come a long way since the 1932 games in L.A. where athletes were timed to the nearest one-tenth of a second. The company brought thirty “official” stopwatches to those games to be used in all timed events. (Until then, timekeepers brought their own!) The high-tech innovation of the day was being able to time “splits” during races—something you can now do easily with a smartphone app. Still, much controversy surrounded the timing activities and a backup system finally determined the winner of the 100-meter duel between Eddie Tolan and Ralph Metcalf, both running for the U.S.

Science of the Summer Olympics: Measuring a Champion gives insights into the accuracy and precision of high-tech timing devices that are still supported by backup systems. Consider using this video at the beginning of the year as you remind students of the importance of accurate measurements in investigations and using instruments with precision.

The series is available cost-free on www.NBCLearn.com and www.NSF.gov. Use the link below to download the lesson plans in a format you can edit to customize for your situation. And if you had to make significant changes to a lesson, we’d love to see what you did differently, as well as why you made the changes. Leave a comment, and we’ll get in touch with you with submission information. We look forward to hearing from you!

–Judy Elgin Jensen

Image of Usain Bolt coming off the blocks courtesy of Nick J. Webb.

Video

In “Measuring a Champion,” Dr. Linda Milor, an electrical engineer at Georgia Institute of Technology, explains modern timekeeping devices in terms of accuracy and precision. The video also highlights how such devices and the technologies associated with them are used for a variety of timed Olympic events, including track and field, swimming, and cycling.

Lesson plans

Two versions of the lesson plans help students build background and develop questions they can explore regarding precision and accuracy. Both include strategies to support students in their own quest for answers and strategies for a more focused approach that helps all students participate in hands-on inquiry.

SOTSO: Measuring a Champion models how students might investigate a question about the accuracy and precision of timing devices.

SOTSO: Measuring a Champion, An Engineering Perspective models how students might evaluate the accuracy and precision of various tools used to time an event.

You can use the following form to e-mail us edited versions of the lesson plans:

[contact-form 2 “ChemNow]

Many of you are getting ready to start (or have already started) your first teaching assignment. Welcome to the profession! Now that you’re on your own, you may have lots of questions in your first month or two.
During the last few years, the Ms. Mentor blog addressed questions from both new and experienced teachers, and many other teachers offered their suggestions as comments. Here are a few that may be helpful to you at the beginning of the year:

• Getting (and staying) organized is a challenge for all of us. Here are some suggestions for organizing unit plans, lesson plans, and other resources.

• Before you start your first lab activity, make lab safety your highest priority.

• Classroom seating arrangements can help establish routines for your lab or classroom. Think outside of traditional rows with these ideas.

• “Decorating” the classroom can be a time-consuming task. Displaying science on classroom bulletin boards has ideas for making your classroom an inviting and student-centered place in which to learn and explore science topics.

• You certainly aren’t planning on being sick, but new teachers are not yet immune to classroom germs. Having plans for substitutes can help you rest at home.

• And it’s never too early to think about back-to-school nights or open houses when you get to meet the parents.

Best wishes for a great year!
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kacey3/1263403799/

A record 4200+ Paralympians will compete in 20 sports at the London 2012 Games that begin August 29. Of the 20 sports included, 17 are Paralympic versions of sports played in the Olympic Games. Wheelchair rugby is one of the unique ones. Find out how science knowledge and engineering design contribute to the success of the players in this installment of the NBC Learn/NSF videos series Science of the Summer Olympics—Engineering for Mobility. Then have a crashingly good time watching wheelchair rugby players on TV!

While your class rosters are still in flux and books have yet to be distributed, use one (or more!) of these videos to engage students in back-to-school critical and creative thinking. A group of engineers we spoke to while developing the lessons noted that “creative” is usually not an adjective associated with engineers. Yet, engineering design processes often begin with creative thought and approximations.

The series is available cost-free on www.NBCLearn.com and www.NSF.gov. Use the link below to download the lesson plans in a format you can edit to customize for your situation. And if you had to make significant changes to a lesson, we’d love to see what you did differently, as well as why you made the changes.

Use these NSTA-developed lessons to encourage creativity in your students. Then be sure to let us know how they worked for you. Your comments help us be creative, too!

–Judy Elgin Jensen

Image of wheelchair rugby team in action courtesy of Jonas Merian.

Video

In “Engineering for Mobility,” Rory Cooper, a biomechanical engineer at the University of Pittsburgh and Summer Paralympics participant in the 1998 games in Seoul, is featured. In his Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Cooper and his graduate students are doing research on how wheelchairs are designed and built depending on the sport played, and sometimes, on the position played by the athlete. The video also discusses the concept of the center of gravity of various types of wheelchair designs.

Lesson plans

Two versions of the lesson plans help students build background and develop questions they can explore regarding center of gravity and wheelchair design. Both include strategies to support students in their own quest for answers and strategies for a more focused approach that helps all students participate in hands-on inquiry.

SOTSO: Engineering for Mobility models how students might investigate the relationship of the distribution of mass and center of gravity in a system.

SOTSO: Engineering for Mobility, An Engineering Perspective models how students might design a wheelchair for use in tennis or another sport.

You can use the following form to e-mail us edited versions of the lesson plans:

[contact-form 2 “ChemNow]

No one is against Professional Development (PD) for science teachers. But, how it is typically structured remains a major problem. Not many Professional Development efforts outline how the PD can be structured as an example of science itself. Professional Development efforts, even those funded by NSF and offered by organizations like the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and the National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA), require follow-up (or evidence of success).
PD efforts are too often performed like traditional science teaching, that is, without reference to current reform efforts and not using science itself to provide evidence for the specific value of the reforms advocated. Seldom do typical PD providers challenge the actual results of their specific PD efforts. They often involve “national” featured speakers and often involve all teachers in a particular school. Teachers are expected to attend. The leaders often attack typical teaching but do not practice the reforms they describe with their own “presentations.” They often mimic traditional college science teaching where teachers (scientists) talk about what they know and expect all attendees to understand and to find such descriptions useful. The points made by “presenters” are sometimes personal and at times argue for the reform goals. They push for improvements which are not defined by “seeing it” or “experiencing it” in action.
Although many PD efforts are headed by national leaders and often include specific commercial sponsors, rarely is any real evidence of their successes sought or collected after the workshops. Most would need to get such evidence from the teachers after the workshop and after the ideas have been tried with their own students. Seldom is anyone expected to report on their successes with various PD features involving their actual work with their students. It is like hearing about success rather than being involved with it or feeling the need for specific evidence of impact. Evaluation must involve teachers and their students in the evaluation of a PD program to use in assessing or claiming success. This would be expected from science teachers since it would also impact what students do. Some are now collecting evidence for enrollees before the actual starting of the PD program. Can real success be measured only with smiling faces, complimentary comments, and verbal testimony that the time was well spent?
But, what do teachers do differently later regarding the suggestions of the PD experiences in their own classrooms with their own students? What do they say to their students, administrators, and parents? What actually happens in their classrooms? Do they interact with administrators and other teachers about the ideas recommended and “tried?” “Presentations” are all too typical of NSTA conferences, to school based PDs, or for teachers as they prepare to teach.
One of the most important features of a model PD is the contacts teachers have with the teacher participants after the session–preferably some weeks after the particular PD. Are enrollees expected to report and to share their new ideas with other teachers, with the PD staff, with their own students? Do students help evaluate the new activities and procedures tried?
The Iowa Chautauqua Program is exceptional when one looks at the years it has operated in Iowa: 1982-2008. Basic to the design is the use of other teachers as the most important staff members. They were called Teacher Leaders. Each Chautauqua effort operates at least for a single whole year. It starts with a two week Leadership Conference involving the most successful teachers from previous PD efforts as they prepare to be important staff colleagues for other teachers. They have been identified by staff and other teachers in accomplishing the reforms the best. They learn how they can become leaders and how they can continue to grow into even more successful teachers. How can they help others in the process?
The Iowa Chautauqua was validated in terms of how it accomplished the goals three times by the National Diffusion Network (1994, 1995, and 1996). The Chautauqua sequence has operated at sites across the whole State for 30 years. After NDN approval, the Iowa Chautauqua was introduced to leaders in other states. This was especially successful with teachers involved with the NSTA’s Scope, Sequence, and Coordination (SS&C) project where all science teachers in the particular schools were involved collectively. In years, following SS&C support, there were five sites involved annually across the State where 70 more teachers were introduced to the Chautauqua PD program.
The teachers generally included 10 at the elementary, 10 at the middle school level, and 10 at the high school levels. The collaborative was set up to be active for at least one whole given year. It has often been longer–sometimes four years! This often involves all teachers from a given school and with three Teacher Leaders at each site. Some Teacher Leaders have served as long as 10 years. Many continue to grow and to learn from other Teacher Leaders as new plans are developed and tried during the annual Leadership Conferences.
Science and the Iowa Chautauqua start with student questions, attempts to answer students’ own questions, sharing the results with each other, and interacting further with their peers. This is a way for them to experience examples of science itself. At most sites control group teachers from nearby schools are asked to help; only one or two teachers “participate” by allowing comparison of students without any teachers involved with the Iowa PD. It was a way of enlarging the team, including the involvement of other teachers. It was especially prevalent in nearby schools when SS&C was funded for eight continuous years. It was a way of gaining more support from administrators, community leaders, and all science teachers in a given district.
When teachers work together in developing and sharing goals, teaching tips, and student successes, they are most successful and treat PD experiences like it is a science. It is apparent that when teachers and students are successful, they seem to want to learn even more. Perhaps if teachers want to learn more, they can really make PD experiences more successful–and provide teachers with the power of working collaboratively. All this indicates again that students must want/need to learn in order to accomplish real learning!
–Robert E. Yager
Professor of Science education
University of Iowa
Image of teachers in a professional development session courtesy of KW Barrett Elementary.

I’m looking for project ideas or activities that fifth grade students can do to connect what they learn in science with the “real world” outside of the classroom. Do you have any suggestions?
–Frank, Delaware
Helping students to see these connections addresses students who ask (as they should),”Why do we have to learn this?”  By engaging in authentic activities, students have a chance to apply what they are learning to new situations, they can experience what scientists actually do, and many of their experiences could evolve into lifelong interests or career choices.
Rather than add-ons or special events, these projects and activities should relate to and extend your learning goals.

• Have students expand their study of living things to other parts of the school. Set up and maintain aquariums or plants in the office, library, or other public areas. Create and maintain flower gardens, vegetable gardens, or water gardens.

• Spearhead a schoolwide recycling project, especially for paper or cafeteria waste (see the article Trash Pie in March 2010 Science & Children).

• Set up and monitor a weather station and include the students’ report as part of the daily announcements. Some local television stations even provide the equipment and share student data on the nightly news. I know a teacher whose students gather weather data for the day and share it with the principal to help her make decisions about indoor/outdoor recess.

• Contact the director of a local park or nature center for ideas. For example, students could identify trees and make identification signs for them. A nearby college or university may have projects in which your students could participate.

• Inventions can give students a chance to turn ideas into real products. See the Invention Connection website  and NSTA Reports for connections between inventions and STEM topics.

• Armed with digital cameras, students could inventory the environment in and around the school. They could create their own virtual “museum” displays of local rocks, landforms, shells, insects, or leaves.

Another possibility is involving your students in authentic “citizen science” projects. In these regional and national projects, participants record observations in their own communities and upload data to a project database. Students get to see “their” data used as part of a larger project and are encouraged to pose their own research questions. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology has several ongoing projects, including BirdSleuth. The article Using Citizen Scientists to Measure the Effects of Ozone Damage on Native Wildflowers in April 2010  Science Scope describes an air quality monitoring project. In Project BudBurst participants chart their observations of plant growth. Monarch Watch has teams documenting the migration of these insects. For more ideas, see NASA Citizen Scientists and Scientific American.
Search the archived issues of Science & Children and Science Scope for more ideas.  To get you started, I’ve created a Resource Collection via the NSTA Learning Center with the articles mentioned previously and others that showcase authentic projects.
When you and your students choose and conduct a project, consider sharing your experiences via an NSTA journal!
 
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/glaciernps/4427417055/in/photostream/
 

Too often the reform of science for K-12 students is described as being “hands-on.” Analyses of the “Hands-On” ideas for classrooms seem to miss how and why hands-on actually does not define needed reforms adequately. Hands-on often become merely directions students are expected to follow. Teacher directions also often refer to specific information included in textbooks or those found in laboratory manuals. Students are left out in terms of why their hands are to be used! They are not expected to think–just to do what they are told.
Do students really need to be directed and/or encouraged to use their hands, and, for what purpose? Are “hands” basic for “doing” science? What about thinking and questioning?
It seems once again that teachers, administrators, parents, and even NSTA members are only looking for quick fixes and things to keep students involved with their muscles and hands. There seems to be no real concerns for student thinking and/or their use of the ideas suggested for responding to their own questions. Further, there is rarely any attempt to relate the Hands-on ideas to the real nature of science itself.
Certainly not many scientists would indicate their work is related to their hands. Most need (and often develop) tools to test their ideas. But, they are not “directed” to do this! Hands-on misses vital ingredients of science envisioned by most current reforms.
Science starts with humans exploring the things encountered in nature. One uniqueness of humans is their interest in exploring the natural world. (It is there to be explored.) All humans (even when still in the mother’s womb) react to the objects, conditions, and events that they encounter. The human mind cannot be stopped until death.
Most love to do things with their hands–but it often has nothing to do with exploring nature. Some parents encourage children to play with toys. Too often, though, they are not encouraged to explore more deeply and/or to formulate questions, express interests, or suggest evidence which can be used to support their ideas and explanations.
Why is it so hard to encourage teachers to ask students and to encourage them to investigate, to offer ideas, to interact with others (especially other students) as well as with parents and local “experts” concerning their ideas?
If reforms are to be realized, we need to encourage more student ideas which are followed with questions about their validity and usefulness. These should also lead to a consideration of them in conjunction with ideas from others. Science is not like art in this respect. It requires collaboration.
Everyone, especially students in science classes, should be encouraged to question, to follow-up with evidence to support their ideas, to evaluate each idea for its validity, to consider other explanations and to share all ideas with others. “Hands-On” may be needed to develop tools to investigate student ideas. They might be of use in terms of evidence that can be offered. Evaluating the differences of the ideas from other students is part of science itself. It is what scientists do. Often collecting evidence involves technology, not science!
Professional scientists start with questions–not playing with tools. They do not start with directions described and/or actions suggested by others. Most often hands-on means doing what teachers, texts, and laboratory manuals suggest. The focus of science in classrooms is too often only words and explanations advocated by others. Teachers rarely encourage debate about questions or for the collection of evidence to validate the answers offered. Learning of real science does not happen if teachers or instructional materials continue to push for more “Hands-On” efforts assuming that such acts exemplify science. Instead there should be more attention to defining the actions needed and portray what science actually is. In fact, hands-on directions may hinder the learning and practice of real science!
–Robert E. Yager
Professor of Science education
University of Iowa
Image of students engaged in a science summer course courtesy of Ohio Sea Grant and Stone Laboratory.

–Occasional commentary by Robert E. Yager (NSTA President, 1982-1983)
Science Literacy is widely used as an important goal for science teaching. The term Popularity and Relevance of Science Education for Scientific Literacy (PARSEL) in Europe is used to indicate science reforms for every K-12 classroom; the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) in the U.S. lists it as a “guiding principle” for PreK-16 science education. But, what does it mean in practice?
Few argue against it as a goal. But, Morris Shamos, a practicing scientist (physics) and a past president of NSTA, has written a whole book entitled: “The Myth of Scientific Literacy” (1995). He used himself as an example of being scientifically illiterate (based on the fact that he could not pick up an issue of the AAAS “Science” journal and read every article with understanding)!
To be literate means being able to read and write (check any dictionary in English!). Reading and writing are fine skills for all to obtain, but are they basic to “doing” science? To do science does not begin with a book about science results and reading and writing what is included in the book using the English language.
Instead of reading and writing only, science focuses on actually exploring the natural world known to humans. Science requires engagement with student minds as they seek to explain the objects and events encountered.
Too many teachers tell students to read a science textbook, recite on what it says, and be ready and able to answer verbally what the book includes. Correct responses to teacher questions about what is included in the book are expected as an act of transmission from teachers to students. It is to be an indication of evidence that learning has occurred. Students are only expected to remember what teachers judge as important. These actions are not acceptable for deciding if a person is “scientifically literate.”
It is not fair to merely accept Shamos’ conclusion that science literacy is a false goal–and one that opposes the very nature of science itself! If it continues to be met as a guiding principle by NSTA and many other reformers, it is important to clarify explicitly what needs to be done and what is not done for accomplishing such a goal. The ability to define terms is fine–but what really is meant by “defining” use of the term as being central to science education and an indication of “scientific literacy.” Why are both words important alone or together? And, what about desired actions, including curiosity and evidence collecting? Why has science become a group activity and not a piece of art or possibly a physical sport? These human activities are personal and not something requiring evidence and thinking by others.
One of the most important outcomes of K-16 science teaching should include more practice for students in actually doing science. This means always beginning with questions and not merely “being given” explanations (from teachers, textbooks, or lab directions). Information for class discussions should be science with personal interests of students. It should also relate to others using their further insights. Should understanding the Nature of Science be a goal for science teachers and their students? This would lessen teacher led discussions or reviews of what is included in textbooks. It has to eliminate students asking if something will be “on the test.” Too often laboratories are expected to involve students in only following directions–often focusing on the science content considered.
–Robert E. Yager
Professor of Science education
University of Iowa
Image of students on nature trip courtesy of Woodley Wonder Works.

Sarah Robles punctuates the opening of every Science of the Summer Olympics video—with good reason. She’s a “super heavyweight” lifter. Sarah’s strong for sure, but her abilities rely as much on finesse as on strength. See how her technique ties into robotics in this installment of Science of the Summer Olympics—Sarah Robles and the Mechanics of Weight Lifting.

Asking teachers what they think of when they think “engineering,” we found that most often it’s robotics. Very few mention biology topics outside of genetics. This video will give students insight into the field of biomimetics, or using nature to help design and engineer a variety of devices. Not only will your future mechanical engineers see how science is put to work, your future bioengineers will too.

If you are just tuning into this blog after an all-too-short summer break, scroll down to find others in NBC Learn’s Science of the Summer Olympics video series that focus on the link between science knowledge and engineering design with input from NSF engineers. NSTA-developed lesson plans help you put the videos to work in the classroom. The series is available here, and cost-free on www.NBCLearn.com and www.NSF.gov.

We hope you will try them out. If you do, please leave comments below each posting about how well the information worked in real-world classrooms. And if you had to make significant changes to a lesson, we’d love to see what you did differently, as well as why you made the changes. Leave a comment, and we’ll get in touch with you with submission information.

–Judy Elgin Jensen

Image of weightlifter courtesy of Keith Williamson.

Video
In “Sarah Robles and the Mechanics of Weightlifting,” Brian Zenowich, a robotics engineer at Barrett Technology, Inc., explains how he and others working in the field of biomimetics use nature to help design and engineer a variety of devices, including some of those used in medicine. Zenowich discusses and demonstrates his company’s Whole Arm Manipulator, or WAM™ Arm, and compares it to how Olympian weightlifter Sarah Robles’ arms work.

Lesson plans
Two versions of the lesson plans help students build background and develop questions they can explore regarding mass, force, and robotic arms. Both include strategies to support students in their own quest for answers and strategies for a more focused approach that helps all students participate in hands-on inquiry.

SOTSO: Sarah Robles and the Mechanics of Weightlifting models how students might investigate the relationship of mass and force.

SOTSO: Sarah Robles and the Mechanics of Weightlifting, An Engineering Perspective models how students might design simple models to mimic robotic arms.

You can use the following form to e-mail us edited versions of the lesson plans:

[contact-form 2 “ChemNow]

If you focus science explorations in your classroom on a yearly theme, consider water play/study. Carol M. Gross of Lehman College describes the many, many aspects to water play/study and connections to social learning, art, physical development, and social studies in her article “Science Concepts Young Children Learn Through Water Play” in the Dimensions of Early Childhood, vol 40 no. 2, 2012, the journal of the Southern Early Childhood Association.  (SECA is a regional organization that advocates for quality care and education for young children and professional development for early childhood educators.)
Dr. Gross draws from a large number of resources to fully describe the spectrum of activities with water. Her tables are so useful! She lists concepts, the explorations that can occur and describes meaningful conversation questions so we can really see the science in water play.
For example, while engaged at a water table or while cleaning tables, children can explore porosity, defined as permeability to fluids, exploring with sponges, cotton, cloths for everyday cleaning, or for exploration in a low container of water, and teachers can support the exploration by asking, What happened when you squeezed it? What did you find out about this material? Which material held the most water?
Water play/study is part of learning about topics such as, properties of materials, needs of living organisms, understanding motion, measurement, and making mixtures.
Thanks to Dr. Carol Gross and SECA  for supporting early childhood teachers in teaching science! Comment below to share how you use water play to teach science concepts in your program.
Peggy