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

We already knew Michael Phelps was good. Now Missy Franklin is a household name. But how much of their achievement might be attributed to the pool? Find out about the design and engineering of the London Aquatics Center in this installment of Science of the Summer Olympics—Designing a Fast Pool. Who knew how much engineering goes into a huge hole filled with water and marked off into lanes!

Join NBC Learn, NSF, and NSTA as they explore the engineering of sport (and science too!) through the lens of the 2012 Summer Olympics. Use the video to engage students, spark discussion, and liven up your own lesson plans. Use the NSTA-developed lesson plans to promote inquiry through the application of science and engineering design concepts. These lesson plans provide a good opportunity, in the words of one of our contributors, to allow students to “mess around” with materials as they develop and refine their own questions for investigation. Allowing students to “mess around” with equipment, even simple materials, conjures up scenes of chaos in many. But those who build in a little extra time for students to examine the available materials and fiddle around with them find that it actually conjures up more thoughtful explorations!

Add these STEM resources, available cost-free on www.NBCLearn.com and www.NSF.gov, to your arsenal as you prepare to head back to the classroom. And be sure to let us know how you like them!

Hmmmmm … wonder how many more medals Mark Spitz might have hung ‘round his neck if he had swum in such a “fast” pool!

–Judy Elgin Jensen

Aerial image of London Aquatic Center courtesy of Context Travel.

Pool image courtesy of Claire Dancer.

Video
In “Designing a Fast Pool,” Anette Hosoi, a mechanical engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains how the knowledge of waves and the energy they transfer is applied to designing competitive pools, such as those built at the London Aquatics Center for the 2012 Summer Olympics.

Lesson plans
Two versions of the lesson plans help students build background and develop questions they can explore regarding pool design and other factors that impact the swimmer. 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.

Designing a Fast Pool models how students might investigate factors associated with the mass of the swimmers.

Designing a Fast Pool, An Engineering Perspective models how students might apply what they learn in the video or other sources to explore how pool design and turbulence are related.

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

[contact-form 2 “ChemNow]

Are you thinking of supplementing traditional textbooks with digital media? If you’re looking for websites and other resources for your curriculum topics, take a look at SciLinks, NSTA’s collection of vetted websites. Access to the site is free, and a free registration will give you access to even more features.
You can find websites in the database either by using the codes in your SciLinked textbook (look for the logo) or NSTA publication or by searching for a keyword and grade level on the site.
As a teacher, you can provide logins for students to search for sites, give them a list of suggestions, or include the links in another online document such as Moodle, a social media site, a class blog, or your website. With the “Favorite Websites” feature of SciLinks, you can create your own subset of websites to share with students. For interested or advanced students, you might go up to the next grade level or you could go down a level for students who may struggle with the text.  Share a login with the librarian so that he/she can remind students of this resource. If your students use the technology at a local public library, perhaps the staff there could be alerted as to how and why students would access this.
One thing I’ve enjoyed over the years is using the SciLinks websites to keep current on topics such as human genome research, earthquakes, or climate change. If you’re unfamiliar with a topic, searching for sites geared to middle or high school students would be a quick and painless way to learn more about it.

With the College Board’s increased emphasis on student inquiry as part of the AP Biology curriculum revision, I am struggling with whether to require my students to keep a written and bound laboratory notebook, as is the practice in industry. The biology department chairman at our local university says that such practice is up to individual professors. Is the lab notebook going the way of the dinosaurs as laptops and notepads are becoming more common?
—Dan, Missouri
We hear a lot in journals and at conferences about science notebooks, but the role of technology is a consideration. I forwarded your question to two science professionals for additional insights.
Rose Clark, PhD, is the department chair and a professor of chemistry at Saint Francis University, in Loretto, Pennsylvania. She also works with classroom teachers as part of a math-science collaborative.

In academics the laboratory notebook is still crucial. Documentation of research/experimental data is very necessary, and written analysis is still a major form of documentation. I do not know of any colleagues in chemistry research that have gone to tablet [computers]. We do have a lot of electronic data on the other hand that has to be saved and stored as part of the documentation of our work. I am sure there is a mix in industry as well. 

In general, as an educator, I think it is critical that the students learn the process of keeping a good laboratory notebook on paper. Taking the time to write in the notebook allows the students time to organize their thoughts.  They also take the time to create tables and organize data since they will not be able to reorganize easily. I would hate to see students not trained to use a paper notebook. Once they get a job they will easily learn software to keep notebooks if needed but learning the process of keeping a good notebook is harder to teach.

Nicole Henderson is a biologist and an associate staff scientist at the Hershey Company.

This is an interesting and timely question. As we stand today, we [those working in research and development] are still using traditional lab notebooks for project work. There is a push currently to move to electronic lab notebooks as part of a “knowledge management” process. [The team is] looking at several systems, but it wouldn’t just be keeping the same information in emails or word docs—it has to be part of a bigger, searchable system. 

Many of us currently in science research and education grew up with hard copy notebooks. But it’s hard to predict what tools our students will be using in their future endeavors, and we want them to be able to adapt to new tools as they are developed. As Dr. Clark notes, having a strong foundation in organizing and analyzing data seems more important for students than mastering a current technology that will itself be soon outdated.
You might also consider how students will access electronic-only lab documents during the year, both in and outside of class. Will they have to log into a school network or document-sharing program to retrieve them? Will they maintain their own copies digitally? How will students access their notebooks in the future (for example, referring to their work after they go on to college)?
Electronic tools do have advantages in terms of communications.  Files can be archived, updated, and shared for input and comments. (I know teachers who are using LiveBinders http://www.livebinders.com/ for students to create electronic portfolios.) As a teacher, I would welcome a way to avoid carrying dozens of student notebooks around to review. I also can’t imagine writing a report in longhand or organizing data without a spreadsheet.
I visited a biology class recently in which the teacher used a hybrid approach. The students were investigating the relationship between salt concentrations in water and the growth of plants. Students on each team recorded their own data in their notebooks. The teacher then guided the students through designing a spreadsheet in Google Docs in which all of the teams could combine their data. The spreadsheet was displayed on the white board as each data set was entered. Right away, students began noticing patterns and anomalies. The class discussion was intense as they tried to explain them.
Whatever hardware and software students use today will probably be extinct “dinosaurs” within a few years. For example, in the 1990s (not that long ago), my dissertation was prepared with software that no longer exists and stored on a 3.5″ floppy disk. I was able to translate the documents into a version compatible with my current technology, but most of the formatting was lost. Fortunately, I still have the hard copy. I also still have my yellowed and dog-eared high school and college science notebooks.
Rather than thinking of traditional notebooks as “dinosaurs,” perhaps we should think of them as “horseshoe crabs”—predating and surviving the dinosaurs, and having a role to play even as other tools become available and relevant.
 
Photo source: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/3110638201_0b7e66a19a.jpg