My principal encourages all teachers to have students do class presentations during the year. I like the idea, but the thought of listening to 150 “oral reports” on a chemistry topic is mind-boggling, not to mention time-consuming. Do you have any suggestions for making this a positive experience for both the presenters and the audience (and the teacher)?
I’m assuming your principal wants students to develop and demonstrate skills that will be useful regardless of what they do after high school, such as presenting to an audience.
From experience, I know exactly what you mean about implementing this. There are only so many “oral reports” or PowerPoints on endangered species, elements of the Periodic Table, infectious diseases, or famous physicists you can sit through at one time. The students in the audience will get restless, too. With 5-6 classes of 25-30 students each, even if each presentation took 5 minutes, you would have to devote several class periods to this task, including time for research and preparation. And quite frankly, I’m not sure the benefits would justify the time and effort for a once-and-done report, for the presenter or the audience. So perhaps it’s time to think outside of the box:

• No law says all students must deliver their presentations at the same time. What would happen if you spread out the opportunities rather than try to fit everyone into a few class periods, one after the other?
• Is it essential for all students report on the same theme or topic or use the same template?
• Think about presentations you’ve attended. What made them effective? Was it a team effort, such as a panel discussion? How did the presenters use visuals or other media? How did they engage the audience?

One authentic practice scientists do is communicate the results of their research. You could have students emulate this practice, without adding additional activities to your crowded schedule.

For example, after a lab investigation, you as the teacher probably go over and discuss the results. Instead of your discussion, you could assign a team of students to present their results in a panel format. Choose one team at the beginning of the lesson to be the “presenter.” You could assign roles to the team members so that each would participate: Person 1 – Introduce the team and present the question, problem, or hypothesis. Person 2 – Summarize the procedure.  Person 3 – Provide a display or description of the data, observations, or results. Person 1 (again) – Relate the results back to the question or hypothesis. Person 4 – Note any questions the team had, how the investigation could or should be done differently, and moderate questions from the audience. Give the team some time at the end of the activity or at the beginning of the next class to prepare their presentation. Rotate the roles so students do a different report component each time the team presents. Students could incorporate available technology, such as an interactive white board, digital camera, or document projector.
At first, you may have to model how to summarize and how to make an effective presentation (my students enjoyed it when I modeled an ineffective one, too). You may also have to model how to contribute as a respectful audience member and suggest types of questions and prompts for discussion: Compare their results to yours. How are they similar? Different? Use the rubric you already have for investigations to provide feedback to the team. The audience could match the presentation to the rubric and note any differences in their outcomes.
Once your students have experience with this type of presentation, invite your principal to be part of an audience to see what your students are capable of doing.
 
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/roswellpark/3598764392/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Calling on experienced teachers—what do you advise new teachers to do to establish routines that support discussion, especially discussion where children share their ideas and evidence for those ideas? Discussion can happen in small groups, with an individual or at a circle time.
We can discard the hope for an ideal circle time. I try to have realistic and age-appropriate expectations for reflection and thinking about what the experiences mean during a circle time. It helps if I have a modest goal of having some-to-many, but not all, of the children and adults listen attentively, think deeply about the discussion and reply respectfully, at least part of the time. Over time children can increase their attention span and are able to listen to each other.
Editors of Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8, Carol Copple and Sue Bredekamp, with Janet Gonzalez-Mena, discuss their work and say,
“Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) means teaching young children in ways that

• Meet children where they are, as individuals and as a group
• Support each child in attaining challenging and achievable goals that contribute to his or her ongoing development and learning

There’s a little more to it than that, but that’s the main idea.”
In the Question and Answer session online they said this about introducing two and a half-year-olds to a circle time,
“For me the whole idea is to get them used to the fact that being with other children and an adult is interesting and worthwhile. They don’t have to be all together in a large group.”
(For a description of a developmentally inappropriate circle time, read the first page of the Viewpoint column from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) journal, Young Children on the Web July 2005, Whatever Happened to Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Literacy? By Susan B. Neuman and Kathleen Roskos.)
The NAEYC position statement on Developmentally Appropriate Practice is available in English and Spanish at http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/dap
I once video-taped a kindergarten class while I thought they were listening attentively to the teacher reading a book aloud. Upon reviewing the video, I was surprised to see that most of the children had been bobbing and weaving as they fidgeted while still intently focused on the teacher—something I hadn’t noticed while filming. They were able to answer questions and participate in the discussion about the book after—so being still is not the same as paying attention.
NAEYC’s 10 Effective DAP Teaching Strategies is at http://www.naeyc.org/dap/10-effective-dap-teaching-strategies These strategies work well during a science talk time!
In the Science & Children column “Talk Strategies: How to promote oral language development through science,” (November 2011, pgs 62-66) authors Lauren M. Shea and Therese B. Shanahan include “Report to a Partner,” “Three-way Interview,” and “Think-Pair-Share” among the strategies they use to include talk into science lessons–especially helpful in developing the vocabulary of English learners.
Other useful articles about science talk in Science & Children are:
“Connecting Science and Literacy Through Talk: Third graders sit in a literacy circle and talk simple circuits in science class” by Jeff Winokur, Karen Worth, and Martha Heller-Winokur (November 2009, pgs 46-49). This article describes a third grade class.
“Science Conversations for Young Learners: Tips on guiding kindergarteners to participate in large-group discussions in science” by Julie Sander and Sara Nelson (February 2009, pgs 43-45). The authors describe how science talk developed in their classroom as they tried strategies and made changes to meet their goals.
The NSTA Learning Center forum, “Home > Elementary Science > What Does Inquiry Science Look like in Elementary Classrooms”, has an in-depth discussion about science talk going on—join in!
The culture of “science talk” develops over the school year. Consistent practice and teacher modeling teaches the expectation of sharing observations, saying what we think about them, and why we think that. Have the children help the write and post the rules for participating at Circle Time. Include a “Science Talk” circle time on the Daily Schedule on days when the class is ready to share their observations and discuss them. By engaging preschoolers in small groups or short circle times to talk about their observations and what they mean, we are helping children develop their ability to discuss their scientific ideas.
Share your strategies and structures for productive talk in any early childhood classroom.
Peggy

Have you been to a meeting or conference presentation and seen people typing or texting? I often wondered: Are they taking notes? Checking email? Making dinner plans? Playing a game? I found this a little disconcerting, until I realized that they could be backchanneling—participating in an online chat about the session. At first, as a presenter/facilitator, I was a little skeptical about this. But several experiences changed my mind about how backchanneling could add to class participation and collaboration.
I’ve participated in many webinars, and the simultaneous chat among the attendees was interesting, as we asked questions, answered questions, made comments, or added information. In a recent NSTA Web Seminar, the presenters who were not “live” were monitoring this and responded to us when appropriate and asked us questions, too. As I briefly chatted with other participants, I found that I was still paying attention to the presentation. The backchannel interactions added another dimension to the webinar, similar to a turn-and-talk in the classroom. But I was talking with people from across the country, not just turning to 1-2 people physically sitting next to me. I could see how this could open up the classroom to students who might be hesitant to ask a question, especially when conversations are dominated by others. More students could be involved beyond the hand-raisers or more vocal students.

At a workshop, my colleague introduced the teacher-participants to Today’s Meet, a free tool for backchanneling. She set up a “room,” shared the URL and hashtag with the participants, and as the workshop progressed, teachers could add to the conversation in 140-character notes using their laptops or smart phones (via a website or Twitter). We monitored the channel from her laptop and we would share questions or interesting comments. I compared this to the previous day’s session in which we were greeted with blank stares when participants were asked if there were any questions or comments. We now had feedback from participants who in the previous day had never participated verbally in the conversations. At the end of the day, instead of asking for a summary from the 2-3 participants who raised their hands, all of the teachers “tweeted” their feedback. Today’s Meet has an archive feature, so we could review the comments and questions after the session.
So I’m now more open to the concept, especially after following several conferences that I was unable to attend (e.g, #ISTE12). I’m curious to know others’ experiences in backchanneling as a way to get students more involved in class activities, assuming that laptops, tablets, or smartphones are part of the mix. I suspect that the teacher would have to model appropriate and productive comments and questions.  I liked Today’s Meet because it’s free, access is limited to those who are given the URL or hashtag, after a designated amount of time the channel is disabled, the session can be archived for up to a year, and no membership or registration is required to use this. But I’m sure there are other tools that enable the collaborative process.
This could be another collaborative tool in our instructional toolboxes, along with face-to-face conversations, written reports/summaries, and one-to-one conferencing with the teacher.

Like many other residents of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states, I learned a new weather term this week: derecho.  After scrambling to the dictionary and Wikipedia, I learned that the word is pronounced deh-RAY-cho and comes from the Spanish word for “straight.”  A derecho is a rapidly-moving line of storms that has been referred to as a something resembling a hurricane over land.  The derecho that struck June 29, 2012, and caused extensive damage and power outages in areas from Indiana to Virginia came with relatively little warning. Over 1,000 high-wind reports came in to NOAA’s National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center on June 29, and NOAA’s map of the event shows a lit-up corridor of reports along the derecho’s path.  The storms are relatively rare events but are likely to become more widely known and understood as the June 2012 damage assessment and recovery efforts continue in the coming weeks and months. The NOAA Storm Prediction Center’s page “About Derechos” provides extensive background and resources on these types of storms. Accuweather’s description of the June “super derecho” and  Discovery’s “DC Derecho Disaster Explained” include details about the June 29, 2012, event.  If you’re one of the fortunate who have power and online access in the wake of the storm, you can help The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang select a name for this extreme weather event by voting for the term you think best fits— “Swelter in Place” and “Derechosaurus Wrecks” are running neck-and-neck so far today.

Recently, I had the opportunity to test out the Power- Wheel by R.B. Manufacturing. The PowerWheel is a micro hydro generator that can be hooked up to a faucet or hose. It is designed to model how electricity can be generated and to show the transfer of energy. I was intrigued to test this product as the transfer of energy is a difficult concept for middle school students to grasp. Overall, the PowerWheel is a sturdy piece of equipment that comes partially assembled. Eighth-grade students were able to fully assemble the apparatus as shown using the directions provided. If you have a garden-hose spigot at your school, you will have no troubles powering the generator by running the water through the hose. You can also use a pencil to turn the wheel by hand. Enough electricity is produced to get a string of LED lightbulbs to illuminate. The PowerWheel comes with an extremely useful Learning Guide, which is also available as a pdf on the manufacturer’s website. This is a handy option if you want each student to read to learn more about energy. The majority of the publication is informational text covering forms of energy, transfer of energy, and how electricity is created. The content provided is accurate and has graphical representations to allow for ease of comprehension. We were able to use some of the charts, including one on Energy in Our Lives, to assess students on reading charts and graphs as well as learning energy concepts. After you have your PowerWheel hooked up to a water source, it is very easy to demonstrate how energy is transferred by turning on the water and watching the lights begin to glow. However, this demonstration would take less than ten seconds, and wouldn’t require students to engage in any higher-level thinking. The utility of the PowerWheel comes with actually using the device to conduct investigations. Students are able to make qualitative and quantitative measurements as the PowerWheel generates electricity. To assist teachers, the last two pages of the Learning Guide have lesson ideas. In addition, the website provides lesson plans for teachers. If you are new to teaching energy, the lessons will be easy to understand and duplicate. Experienced teachers will be able to easily modify the lesson ideas to meet the needs of their classrooms. The website is not static. New lessons continue to be developed and added. I was able to have students create experimental design investigations to learn more about forms of energy, electricity, and energy transfers. These experiments are what make the PowerWheel valuable to your classroom. You can measure the electrical current using an ammeter at different flow rates. You can see the difference between lighting LED bulbs versus a bike lamp (incandescent bulb). When I looked at postassessment data, I found that students increased their understanding of forms of energy and transfer of energy as a result of using the PowerWheel. I did have one difficulty using the PowerWheel—getting it to connect to a faucet. I did not have a hose to connect the PowerWheel and needed to use a faucet in a classroom. The hose did not automatically connect. In one room, I first had to buy an adapter for the faucet. Then I discovered that my faucet was still too small and had to return to buy another adapter for my adapter. The total extra cost was about $10, but a suggestion would be to make sure you are able to hook everything up ahead of time. Once I had the hose adaptors in place, the PowerWheel worked well in this room. However, in the lab downstairs, the water pressure was not great enough to turn the wheel. Overall, I would recommend the PowerWheel if you want students to investigate electricity and how energy changes forms. It is a simple model that is engaging and has real-world applications.

While mechanical, single-channel, adjustable-volume pipettes are most commonly found in research laboratories, I use them with high school chemistry students to introduce them to the concepts of accuracy, precision, and density at the beginning of each school year. In this lab, students measure volume using beakers, graduated cylinders, and adjustable pipettes, and measure mass using top-loading balances and analytical balances, to determine which combination of measurements provide the most accurate and precise value for the density of distilled water. Using an adjustable Proline Plus Pipette with a range from 100 to 1000 μL, I conducted this lab later in the school year without students, in order to compare it to similar pipettes purchased from other vendors. Overall, I found them comparable in many ways to other pipettes I’ve used in my lab that are available from other manufacturers. Specifically, I found them as durable and easy to use as the Finnipipett II (Fisher Scientific) and BenchMate II (Oxford Labware) pipettes. All three brands measured a range of volume from 100 to 1,000 μL. The Proline pipettes were similar in price ($221) to the Finnpipeete II line ($246), while the BenchMate II line was more expensive ($350). All three come with thorough, easy-to-follow instructions. In terms of durability, it is important for teachers to remind high school students to keep the volume within the range printed on the pipette. If students turn the adjustable dial on the pipette past the accepted volume range, the dial will “stick” and the pipette will become unusable. Based on my comparison, I would recommend the Proline Plus Pipette by Biohit to teachers who are interested in using adjustable volume pipettes with their students. The list price of this brand is a little lower than other brands tested, making it a more economical choice for most teachers.

Amy Murphy