Guest blog post by Jen Brown-Whale

An experienced cat herder has the knowledge and skill that comes with time and practice so that the management of their feline flock is not so much like, well, you know, herding cats. What may seem like an impossible task to the inexperienced, is a smooth and efficient operation to the master cat herder. What I am trying to say is, you cannot just throw out to your Elementary students a compelling photo or video portraying a phenomenon and expect learning to occur organically from a strictly freerange exploration of the given phenomenon. We are educators, professionals, practitioners of a craft and we must be intentional with our choices. Just as with any other subject or time in the history of science education, the most significant student learning results from intentional planning, putting our skills and knowledge to work.

I am not and will not claim to be an expert on the use of phenomena to drive instruction in the Early Childhood or Elementary Science classroom. Throughout and at the end of this post, you can find links to a variety of resources from experts.  However, I do offer the perspective of an educator who has wrestled with the challenges of incorporating phenomena with fidelity into Elementary Science curriculum both at the unit and lesson level.

Concerns and questions I have heard, or have expressed myself:

“Where do I start? How do I select a phenomenon?”

Plan ahead. What are your standards, or what three dimensions do you want students to work with? Choose a phenomenon that will inspire a learning sequence that reaches the necessary standards, or selected Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) three dimensions. The phenomenon doesn’t need to directly portray or address every single standard, or dimension covered in a unit or lesson, it just needs to be related. It should be something that students need to figure out, using the science learning that will occur throughout the lesson or unit. To be clear, a phenomenon is NOT a hook! It is not a one-time motivator, or engagement. Ted Willard, NSTA, once described that, “Anchor phenomena are not an end, they are a means to an end. The end being that students have a purpose that is meaningful to them for what they are doing.” The goal is for instruction to be designed so intentionally that students should be able to recognize and, even better, articulate their understanding of the connection between what they are learning and the anchor and/or lesson level phenomenon. 

“Once I choose a phenomenon and share it with students, do I just let them go? Let them self-select their learning path and explore?

That sounds like it has the potential to be a lot like herding cats, right? Remember, a phenomenon is not simply a hook or engagement. Lesson or unit phenomena are an integral part of a carefully planned and facilitated learning sequence. When a phenomenon is presented, students should be given the opportunity to engage with the phenomenon by asking questions. Educators can then skillfully incorporate those questions into the lessons already crafted. As the learning progresses, students should continually be given opportunities to revisit the phenomenon and their questions, making revisions and being supported in recognizing connections.

“What if my students’ questions do not get at what I need to teach, what if I cannot use their questions to connect to the intended sequence of learning?”

You already know the answer to this one! After experiencing a phenomenon your students are going to ask the “right” questions, the “wrong” questions and everything in between and outside of that! Yes, they are going to ask creative and/or irrelevant questions, but they are also going to ask questions that you, as a practitioner, can skillfully connect to. Please be comfortable with that fact that not all student questions will be addressed. As Aaron Mueller in his July blogpost and Next Gen Navigator article describes, you can support students in also accepting this by first building a culture in which their ideas and questions are respected. Record student questions on chart paper and allow the list to be a living document. You may choose to use a charting strategy such as KLEWS, OWL, or KWL. Leave the list posted throughout the year and return to it as discussions relate, revising the questions and/or adding new questions. Allow students to add to the chart as they generate new questions on their own. The list of questions, including the seemingly silly or irrelevant questions can become valuable insight into your students’ interests and could inspire text selection for the classroom library or the creation of a center.  

“What if my students can’t connect with the phenomenon being presented?”

You are right. A phenomenon needs to be relevant to students. How can you connect to the life experience of your students with the phenomena you choose? If selecting a lesson or a unit that proposes a phenomenon not familiar within the context of your students’ community or everyday life, think about how you can make it “real” for them. Ideally, phenomenon in the Elementary Science classroom should be capable of being directly experienced or investigated by all students. Can your students see, feel, and/or touch what it is they are figuring out? The Grade 2: Why is Our Corn Changing? unit posted by Achieve as a quality example accounts for this direct experience for all students by using actual harvest corn during the lessons. 

“I want to select the perfect phenomenon. How do I find something that is super spectacular so it really engages my students?”

Take a deep breath, and a big step back. Keep it simple in the Elementary grades; keep it simple and make it relevant. I frequently remind the educators with whom I work, “As adults, we often forget what we once did not know.” This reminder was inspired by Dr. Heidi Schweingruber’s discussion of children as “universal novices” during her December 2016 opening keynote at the Ready at Five School Readiness Symposium. Keep in mind that you may have students in your second grade classroom that have never seen a mountain, or a beach. You may have fourth grade students that are not even aware of the native plants and animals in their own backyards or neighborhoods. As adults, because we know about or are at least aware of far more, we may take for granted being in the moment of discovery and slowing down to articulate connections. We may overlook how big of a deal some of the “simple” things are for our youngest learners. Especially in the early Elementary grades, our classrooms may be providing some students with the very first exposure to many ideas or concepts that we, as adults, consider everyday or common knowledge. As educators we are present to support our students in building understanding, in developing the capacity to recognize, interpret and transfer the interrelationships of the world around them.   

Your inner disruptor may be starting to ask, considering the above concerns, “Is phenomena driven science instruction at the Elementary level really necessary, or is this just a gimmick? Is student sensemaking to drive learning really aligned to the research regarding high quality science education, or is it just the newest craze?” 

In the very beginning – the second chapter – of A Framework for K-12 Science Education from the National Academies of Sciences the driving principles of the report are presented. The first being “all children are born investigators.” Within the explanation of the report’s first foundational perspective, the concepts of phenomena driven instruction and student sensemaking at the Elementary level are discussed:

“Thus, before they even enter school, children have developed their own ideas about the physical, biological, and social worlds and how they work. By listening to and taking these ideas seriously, educators can build on what children already know and can do. Such initial ideas may be more or less cohesive and sometimes may be incorrect. However, some of children’s early intuitions about the world can be used as a foundation to build remarkable understanding, even in the earliest grades…The implication of these findings for the framework is that building progressively more sophisticated explanations of natural phenomena is central throughout grades K-5, as opposed to focusing only on description in the early grades and leaving explanation to the later grades.”  (p25)

Additionally, the presence of a phenomena or problem that supports student sensemaking to drive learning is, in fact, the very first criteria of the Achieve EQuIP Rubric for Science Lessons & Units. The EQuIP Rubric provides a standard by which to measure how well lessons and units are designed for the NGSS. A phenomenon, or problem presents an opportunity for students to figure out. Figuring out creates a need to learn, it motivates students to progress through the learning sequence. Specific indicators within the rubric’s first criterion include:

• Making sense of phenomena and/or designing solutions to a problem drive student learning.
• Student questions and prior experiences related to the phenomenon or problem motivate sense‐making and/or problem solving
• The focus of the lesson is to support students in making sense of phenomena and/or designing solutions to problems.

Do you not care for the EQuIP rubric? Too wordy? Phenomena plays a central role in the Achieve Lesson Screener as well. 

The above is to say that student sensemaking is essential to NGSS aligned and designed units and lessons. Students make sense of, they figure out a carefully selected phenomena or problem. This approach is a key shift in perspective of high quality science education, even at the Elementary level. Whether we are a NGSS state or district, as educators, we are charged with transitioning our instruction to methods that not only allow for three-dimensional student learning, but also for figuring out as well. Like the professional cat herder, We have the skills to masterfully orchestrate a seemingly organic learning experience for our students, so let’s go plan!

Additional Resources about selecting and using phenomena:

• The NSTA Learning Center
  • Instructionally Productive Phenomena Collection
  • Phenomena Collection
• The Next Generation Science Standards, Phenomena
  • A three-page PDF
  • Video with Brian Reiser
• STEM Teaching Tools #28, a one-page PDF about selecting high quality anchor phenomena

Jen Brown-Whale serves as the Elementary Science Resource Teacher for the Howard County Public School System in Maryland, where she supports K-5 educators through curriculum development and professional learning. She is a member of the Achieve Science Peer Review Panel, and recently became a member of the NSTA Committee on Preschool-Elementary Science Teaching. Find her on Twitter @ElemSci_JenBW

Citation:National Research Council 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.

When I first began to shift my curriculum to support the Next Generation Science Standards, I was a bit overwhelmed! And frankly, I am still overwhelmed on some days when I work with my students to support their productive struggle and allow them to “figure things out!” I used to hear requests from my students like “It would be so much easier if you would just tell us the answers!” or “Would you please just lecture to us?” They quickly learned that the answer to both of those requests was “You will gain so much more if you work to figure it out!” We (my students and me) all know now that the shift to incorporate the science practices as identified by the NGSS into our classroom has transformed our teaching and learning space.

One of the practices I initially struggled to include was arguing from evidence. What exactly does that mean? How do you get students to productively argue their findings? How do I ensure that all students are learning and sharing their ideas?

In my opinion, the practice of arguing from evidence simply means that students must use evidence (data) found in their experiments, a video, an article, or another learning activity to support a scientific claim through reasoning. In my classroom, students develop the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) framework after much discussion with a partner, then a group, then a whole class.

I never really felt successful leading a classroom discussion using evidence until I was introduced to the process of “productive talk” to support the learning and ideas developed by students. Productive talk uses leading questions to allow students to show what they understand about a concept. After I was introduced to the idea of Productive Science Talk through the Talk Activities Flow Chart and Talk Moves while participating in an IMSP I-STEM initiative created to fully investigate and support the shift to the NGSS in Illinois, I became much more confident. This program was funded by a Math and Science Partnership (MSP) grant in Illinois from July 2015-July 2017. Our facilitator, Nicole Vick, introduced us to these tools, and they provided the support I needed to determine which talking strategy to use in class activities. I determine my end goal and purpose within the lesson, and I match the activity to the strategy that will best support the learning objective. I try to use multiple strategies to support the students’ discussions and learning styles.

When students start talking, they start learning! I have seen a dramatic increase in learning and retention now that I have incorporated productive science talk and talk moves into our learning activities.

In the beginning of the year, I must scaffold the learning activities so that the data to support the claim are easy to identify. I routinely remind my students that their claim must be supported by sufficient and applicable evidence as they work to figure out the lesson.

We work hard in the beginning of the year to develop this skill in small groups. My go-to talk move to encourage students to find the appropriate information and share is “Time to think” followed by “Partner talk.” I use this to allow students to first develop their ideas solo, then with one other person, then discuss them with their group of four. I tell the students to talk with one of “their people.”

The next steps in the discussion are organic. You will “feel” the right time to move on to table discussions, and finally, a class discussion. Developing this practice as a team is essential to ensure students are confident going forward. As I move around the classroom, I hear students asking one another which pieces of data would best support their ideas. If it seems that a student is on the cusp of the right idea, I will ask them to explain themselves, and I will use another talk move, “Say more,” in which I ask them to expand on their idea. Often when prompted, the students will figure out the right information.

We routinely use a claim, evidence, reasoning pattern to ensure students have their ideas ready to present before a class discussion ensues. After students have reached consensus within their table groups, we hold classroom discussions. Students are more motivated to share their ideas if they are confident in their responses.

When I first tried this, I was most worried about buy-in and participation from my reluctant learners. I also worried about meeting the needs of my special-needs students while challenging the highest-achieving members of the classroom! I wondered how in the world could arguing from evidence support all learners.

To ensure participation by and support for everyone, we establish classroom norms during the first week of school. I have students participate in two or three learning activities before we take a break from biological concepts and figure out how to best learn in this way. To have a productive discussion before developing group norms, I have each student independently identify 1) what they did to support the group, 2) what someone else did to support the group, and 3) what they could have done better while in the group. Each table group of four students then shares their ideas and develops “group norms.”

I then lead a discussion to establish a set of class group norms. When doing this, we find that everyone wants equal say and everyone also wants the whole class to contribute! Some groups also identify the need to stay on task and respect the ideas of everyone. I have found that my special education students are able to contribute to the smaller groups with more confidence after they hear that their peers trust them—and need them—to share their ideas. Once they share in a small group, it becomes easier to share with a classroom full of peers!

Encouraging all students to identify the pieces of data that then support their claim from a learning activity has actually increased the engagement of students of all levels in my classroom! It is exciting to hear my upper-level students interact with the students who struggle. They work together, they begin to ask each other questions, and they are able to develop appropriate and accurate conclusions when they verbalize the claim. Hosting class discussions to encourage students to “take a stand” has made my classroom more engaging. When students learn to support their claim with evidence and share their ideas, I hope they eventually use this skill in other areas of their lives for the rest of their lives!

If you have any suggestions for other activities we can use to encourage class discussions so students can learn to argue with evidence, I would love to hear them!

Michelle Monk has taught high school biology for 22 years and is currently teaching Biology 1 and Anatomy and Physiology at Eureka High School in Eureka, Illinois. She previously taught at Spring Valley Hall High School and Tremont High School, where she also taught AP Biology in addition to Biology 1 and Anatomy. Monk earned a bachelor’s degree in biology education from Illinois State University in 1998 and a master’s degree in Educational Leadership from St. Xavier University in 2004. Her passion for helping students learn complex scientific concepts through collaboration is grounded in the idea that building relationships, followed by creating lessons with relevance, is essential to having rigor in the classroom.

 

 

 

Note: This article is featured in the September 2019 issue of Next Gen Navigator, a monthly e-newsletter from NSTA delivering information, insights, resources, and professional learning opportunities for science educators by science educators on the Next Generation Science Standards and three-dimensional instruction.  Click here to sign up to receive the Navigator every month.

---

The mission of NSTA is to promote excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all.

In my science classroom, students look at evidence all the time. Sometimes it is in photos or videos; sometimes in charts and graphs; and sometimes we generate our own data through investigations. A more traditional approach previously used is asking for concrete answers, as in giving students a graph and asking, “How many deer were found in Cook County, Illinois, in 1967 versus 2017?” Now we are shifting our thinking and asking different, more open-ended questions.

As we transition our practices toward three-dimensional teaching and learning, we also adjust our student expectations. The practice of engaging in argument from evidence makes sense; however, once you explore the K–12 Framework for Science Education in depth, it starts to appear more intimidating. One of the best resources for keeping this practice attainable is having another person to work with, whether it is another science teacher, the ELA teacher, or even another teacher you connect with through social media such as a Facebook group member or Twitter follower. Keep reaching out to others to help share the process.

Luckily, middle school students are still eager to share their ideas. Once one of them starts talking, others can’t wait to chime in. At this age, though, it is very important to remind them to listen to one another, or more than one student will say the exact same thing another just said. Keep in mind that it takes practice; stick with it, even when it seems like the students are not understanding it, and keep pushing them to look deeper. Students are full of great insight, and we should give them a chance to show it.

Engaging in argument from evidence might also sound like a traditional debate team situation in which evidence is presented to win an argument. This isn’t quite the case in science classrooms. We aren’t trying to win; we are trying to learn. When the students can connect what we have done in more than one investigation to another related phenomenon or something from their everyday lives, then we have a successful argument using relevant evidence. We are trying to look at evidence and make sense of it, and share that understanding with others.

Let’s return to our earlier question about deer in Cook County. We can easily look at a graph and answer how many more deer were found in 2017 versus 1967. But now we want to know why: What could be happening? How do you know? These types of questions will drive the lesson in a more meaningful direction. Often we don’t know the initial reason why, but as the students begin to express ideas and have small-group discussions, they create new questions for us to investigate. This is also a prime time, however, to get off track if the groundwork hasn’t been laid.

One way to stay on track is to start the year by making a list of discussion norms. Many students bring their ELA discussion cues ideas into the science classroom, which is a huge win for any teacher. They tend to generate norms like listening to one another and not telling one another that their ideas are wrong. We also make sure to reference the actual phenomena we are investigating because it steers the discussion in the right direction.

This is the perfect moment to employ talk moves. When we want the students to go a little deeper, we could ask, “Can you tell me more about that?” or “Who else can add to what was just said?” “Can someone else say this differently?” “Where does our evidence support this idea?” Many great resources for talk moves are available and can help generate a deep discussion.

Through my work with NGSS and Next Gen storylines, I was introduced to the Talk Science Primer from the TERC Inquiry Project. Its suggestions are so useful for getting students to delve deeper when arguing with evidence. For example, when a student makes an initial observation, the teacher could ask them to say more about it, or ask if someone else can say it differently. This keeps the students accountable. Are they really listening to one another behind those blank looks? Sometimes they give you the 100% right answer, but you don’t want to discourage others from responding, so you have to put on your best “that was very interesting” face and keep going. That strategy also works for the most bizarre answers as well: “Oh wow, which is one thing I hadn’t thought of; anyone else?”

As we progress in our understanding and implementation of NGSS and storylines, it is important to remember that no one best way exists to handle every situation. Every teacher is different; every student is different. Some will get there faster; some will get there slower; some might not even get there until next year.

Constant communication is important. Talk to the other teachers at your grade level, talk to the other teachers on your team, in your department, at a conference. Have any relatives who are teachers? Talk to them, too; I know I do.

Don’t feel like you are in this alone, even if you are the only grades 6–12 science teacher in your tiny rural school, or the only science teacher in your building who has ever had three-dimensional science training. Maybe you are the teacher who just heard of NGSS or the Framework for the first time; that’s okay! Remember to keep moving forward, keep asking your students questions, and keep making your students examine the data to use as evidence when developing arguments to try to discover the “Why?”

Rebecca Schumacher is a sixth-grade science teacher at Hickory Creel Middle School in Frankfort, Illinois, where she is fortunate to work with a great team of teachers. She wants to acknowledge Erin Nemeth, the other sixth-grade science teacher, because their collaborative efforts have made this all so much easier. Schumacher received her master’s degree in science education from Montana State University and is National Board–Certified. She has been working with NGSS since 2014, from writing storylines to facilitating training for other teachers throughout Illinois.

 

 

Note: This article is featured in the September 2019 issue of Next Gen Navigator, a monthly e-newsletter from NSTA delivering information, insights, resources, and professional learning opportunities for science educators by science educators on the Next Generation Science Standards and three-dimensional instruction.  Click here to sign up to receive the Navigator every month.

---

The mission of NSTA is to promote excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all.

Most elementary teachers, have many opportunities to learn best practices in English Language Arts (ELA), but few in science. Three years ago David Crowther, NSTA past president (2016–17), said in his conference keynote, “Of the eight practices of science and engineering, four of them are language intensive and thus require students to use multiple domains of language, including nonverbal modalities, and a range of language registers,” This challenged our thinking about how the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts (ELA) taught argumentation to elementary students. Argumentation is not mentioned anywhere until middle school, yet the Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) require students to not only think about argumentation, but also to begin to practice it as young as kindergarten.

Lee (2017)[1] notes another key difference in contrast to the CCSS, in which the term argument is withheld until grade 6: The NGSS expect children from as early as kindergarten to construct an argument with evidence. Thus, “the practice of arguing from evidence is expected consistently throughout K–12.” (p. 97) Since the NGSS indicate that argumentation can be taught and used in the elementary grades and that asking our young scientists to engage in argumentation isn’t an impossible task, the question becomes How?

After examining the NGSS progressions for the SEPs, it is quite evident that argumentation needs to be introduced at the start. For most elementary teachers, ELA is what they know, so we decided to use a book to help students identify argumentation, and see if they would be able to make claims about the evidence that is presented in the book.  We knew that integrating ELA and science was going to be a challenge.

One book that helps to illustrate argumentation and collection of evidence is the classic Starry Messenger by Peter Sis (ISBN 978-0374470272). Written for grades 1–6, this book tells the story of Galileo Galilei and how he used the findings of Copernicus to reiterate that the universe as he knew it was heliocentric. Copernicus realized he did not have enough evidence to proclaim his findings, but he took copious notes so that someone else could use them to not only make the claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but also have the evidence to prove the claim’s validity.

The book presents three opportunities for students to identify types of arguments. Although we know from history that religion played a major part in the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe, the book only briefly touches on the point, saying, “It’s tradition.” This gives us the first opportunity to discuss arguments. At this point, we ask our students questions to help them begin to identify differences among arguments. For younger students, ask, “Just because it is a tradition, does that make it a fact or true?” Ask them to further explain what they believe. For students in grades 3–5, questions should be more open-ended.

The second opportunity to discuss argumentation comes at the point in the book when Copernicus has gathered many findings, but says he cannot publish them. Ask students, “Why do they think Copernicus is not able to make a claim and argue about his findings? What might he be missing?” Students in grades K–5 will be able to discuss what they think. During the discussion, students will be presenting their own arguments. Ask them to give examples from the book supporting their thinking.

Galileo had evidence to support that the Sun was the center of the solar system, but he was persecuted for his findings. Students have the opportunity to not only argue whether he was treated fairly, but more importantly, why his discoveries were accurate and what evidence he had to support his findings.

Asking high-level questions like What are the differences among the various arguments presented in the book? Provide evidence to support your claim; and If you were born at the time of Galileo, which side would you take and what evidence would you provide? allow students to engage in SEP at the elementary level.

K–2 grade band

• Identify arguments that are supported by evidence.
• Distinguish between opinions and evidence in one’s own explanations.

3–5 grade band

• Distinguish among facts, reasoned judgment based on research findings, and speculation in an explanation.

By using trade books to engage students in the SEP of argumentation of evidence, they will have a plethora of opportunities to use argumentation well before they are asked to do it in an ELA classroom. Christine Royce, NSTA retiring president (2019–2020), offered the thought that “Explicitly modeling for students and providing them opportunities to learn about and compare/contrast the use of evidence is one such opportunity to utilize a cross- discipline practice. The increased connections between experiences in which the students participate assists them in transferring their learning. Finding the overlap between argumentation in the science classroom and literacy studies will provide students opportunities to develop, consider, and respond to ideas in writing, verbally and scientifically.”

We are reminded of this every day as we examine the graphic below.

Reference

[1] Common Core State Standards for ELA/Literacy and Next Generation Science Standards: Convergences and Discrepancies Using Argument as an Example, Okhee Lee https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X17699172

Judine Keplar is English Language Arts Curriculum Specialist for St. Louis Public Schools in St. Louis, Misssouri, and also serves as the current president of the Board of Education in Belleville Public School District 118 in Belleville, Illinois. She is a passionate promoter of cross-curricular literacy at all grade levels and enjoys her work writing curriculum and providing professional development around all things literacy-related. She resides in Swansea, Illinois, with her husband and two children.

 

 

Carrie Launius is Science Curriculum Specialist for St. Louis Public Schools in St. Louis, Missouri. She previously was the NSTA District XI Director and president of Science Teachers of Missouri (STOM). She believes using trade books to support science learning is essential for students. She was instrumental in developing and implementing the Best STEM Book Award for NSTA-Children’s Book Council. Her passion is supporting teachers and helping them grow professionally. She resides in St. Louis near her two grown children and with her son and four dogs.

 

 

Note: This article is featured in the September 2019 issue of Next Gen Navigator, a monthly e-newsletter from NSTA delivering information, insights, resources, and professional learning opportunities for science educators by science educators on the Next Generation Science Standards and three-dimensional instruction.  Click here to sign up to receive the Navigator every month.

---

The mission of NSTA is to promote excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all.

When students see the real-world applications of science, their interest levels soar. Teachers are experts at guiding students through the wonders of how science helps us answer questions and engineering helps us solve problems. This month, stock up on new lessons from NSTA Press books that will spark student interest. You’ll be smiling as they marvel at the everyday applications that take science lessons beyond the classroom.

Explore Natural Hazards

The just-published STEM Road Map series volume Natural Hazards, Grade 2, will help elementary students learn about the effects of natural hazards on people, communities, and the environment and consider how threats to human safety from natural hazards can be minimized. Download the lesson “Let’s Explore Natural Hazards” and lead your students on an exploration of the types of natural hazards that occur around the world. Your students will learn that natural hazards can be classified as those with weather-related causes and those caused by Earth’s movements. With hurricane and tornado images and information in the news, students are curious about what causes these types of hazards and how their effects can be minimized. Check out all the topics covered in the growing STEM Road Map series, edited by Carla C. Johnson, Janet B. Walton, and Erin Peters-Burton.

Ask Students to Study What Makes a Great Playground

At recess time, students can bring their studies of physical science down to earth with an engaging lesson from Sami Kahn’s new book It’s Still Debatable! Using Socioscientific Issues to Develop Scientific Literacy, K–5. Download the lesson “Swingy Thingy: What Makes a Great Playground?” to launch your elementary students on a study of playground swings. They’ll get to model swings as they apply their knowledge of forces to support arguments for safe and enjoyable playground design. Along the way, students develop blueprints and work collaboratively to design a dream playground. Other lessons in this new book prompt students to investigate questions like “Do we need zoos?”, “Which alternative energies are best?”, and “Is football too dangerous for kids?” Explore even more key questions using lessons from the first book in this series, It’s Debatable! Using Socioscientific Issues to Develop Scientific Literacy, K–12, by Dana Zeidler and Sami Kahn.

Explore Phenomena That Sparked Engineering Innovations

Focus on innovations sparked by accidental observations with the 22 easy-to-use investigations in Discovery Engineering in Physical Science: Case Studies for Grades 6–12, by M. Gail Jones, Elysa Corin, Megan Ennes, Emily Cayton, and Gina Childers. Your middle and high school students will use real-world case studies to embark on investigations of actual scientific discoveries that began with observations of phenomena and led to inspired inventions and applications. Download the lesson “A Sticky Situation: Gecko Feet Adhesives” to have your students explore how studying the mystery of geckos’ ability to hang by even one toe from a piece of glass led scientists to make an adhesive that mimics the properties of a gecko foot. Other case studies in the book focus on topics from shark skin and bacteria to the history of the Slinky. Check out the next volume in the series that’s coming soon, Discovery Engineering in Biology: Case Studies for Grades 6–12.

Explore NSTA Press’s Newest Books and Save on Shipping

Through October 31, 2019, get free shipping on your order of $75 or more of NSTA Press or NSTA Kids books when you use promo code SHIP19 in the online Science Store. Stock up on books that cover all grade ranges and span key topics like climate change, engineering, physical science, and life science. Browse the catalog online or view the new and forthcoming books. Offer applies to new purchases made online through the NSTA Science Store between now and October 31, 2019.

Intro

Exploring motion, light, temperature, altitude, and magnetic fields can be taken to new interactive heights with the PocketLab Voyager by Myriad Sensors.  Subsequently, by using a wireless sensor, the PocketLab Voyager records and stores data that can be shared with the free PocketLab “app.”

Once coupled, both the “app” and PocketLab device work together to create a variety of  experiments.  Hence, the PocketLab Voyager is designed for users as young as fourth grade; yet, sophisticated enough for engineers, mathematicians, and scientists. 

The PocketLab Voyager operates on a wireless Bluetooth 4.0 connection. Therefore, users are able to collect data using their smartphones, tablets, and computers, which makes accessibility of the PocketLab device simple. Additionally, the PocketLab Voyager has the ability to integrate data with Scratch, Google Drive, and Microsoft Excel. Once integrated,  exploring motion, light, temperature, altitude, and magnetic fields can be taken to new interactive heights for recording and storing data. 

How to Use

Before using the PocketLab Voyager for the first time, it is essential to make sure that the battery is fully charged. To charge the battery, use the orange micro USB cord that is included with the purchase of the PocketLab Voyager. Doing this will take approximately 60 minutes to fully charge. Once fully charged, a red light will stop blinking on the front of the device. After verify that the device is charged, users can follow the PocketLab Voyager Getting Started Guide in order to download the free “app” to connect the PocketLab sensor to their chosen device. A hardcopy of the instructions is included with the purchase of a sensor or can it be accessed on PocketLab’s website at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ds4fzhNVG1RRf4xrKrzQeVW45ktxCto6/view.

We found that the instructions were easy to navigate and the device was ready to collect data within 10 to 15 seconds of pairing.   Moreover, after the set-up with a compatible device, users are prompted and grant access to the camera and microphone.  Once this is accomplished, PocketLab can record a video or capture a graph, combining the collected data in real time. Furthermore, enabling access to the camera and microphone allows users to “record up to 30,000 measurements to the on-board memory,”  which enables users to toggle between sensors, change the points/second feature,  move between units of measurement, and compare up to three sensors at a time.

Once comfortable with the “app” and the settings preference it time to begin experimentation! With every purchase, PocketLab includes a series of nine getting started activity cards that provide information about topics such as barometric pressure, gyroscope, and velocity. These activity cards outline how the PocketLab sensor can assist users to record meaningful data for experimentation.  For assistance, users can always refer to the instruction manual tab located at: https://www.thepocketlab.com/educators/resources.

The Rangefinder

An interesting feature of the PocketLab Voyager’s is the Rangefinder, which makes it possible to gather data through infrared technology. To use it, it’s necessary to open the PocketLab “app” and pair their device with the sensor. Once the devices are paired, the user can then turn on the rangefinder to display the position and velocity graph.

As the PocketLab Voyager moves, the infrared sensor calculates the Voyager’s “distance from the surface which is then used to calculate its velocity.” Purchased separately, the PocketLab device can also be attached to a cart, which will enable the user to calculate kinetic energy, explore energy transfer, and understand how changes in momentum effect the results of the study. Check out the tutorial below for more details!

 What’s Included

· 1 PocketLab Voyager

· 1 Protective Carrying Case

· 1 Set of Getting Started Activity Cards

· 100+ Lessons and Activities

· Micro USB Charging Cable

What Needs Purchased Separately

· Temperature Probe ($9)

· Tactile Pressure Sensor ($27)

· Silicone Protective Case ($10)

· Classroom Set Case and Charger ($58)

· Five Port USB Charger ($19)

Classroom Uses

For planning units and lessons, the PocketLab website provides a myriad of resources for educators to use in their classrooms. Educators will quickly find that Myriad Sensors offer four different sensors. In addition, various classroom kits, sensor accessories, and advanced STEM kits are available for use in conjunction with any PocketLab device.

Teachers also have access to a lesson plan directory listing hundreds of lessons for students of all ages. Additionally, educators can post their own ideas and classroom experiences with their PocketLab devices on a community blog which connects educators from around the globe.

Check out the links below for immediate access to hundreds of classroom resources! –https://www.thepocketlab.com/educators/lesson-plan-directory –https://www.thepocketlab.com/educators

Tips for Getting Started

Before working with a new PocketLab device, be sure to check out the PocketLab website and review the plethora of resources available. Once there, you will see multiple video resources that will help you get the most out of your sensor. Follow this link to gain access to PocketLab’s how-to videos: https://www.thepocketlab.com/educators/resources.

From our experience, we have found that the PocketLab Voyager to be the perfect interactive tool to engage students in ways that transform the way they view science to be an interactive observational tool for the world around them.

Specifications

· Wireless Connection: Bluetooth 4.0

· Battery: Rechargeable via micro USB

· Battery Life: 8 hours (wireless, full data rate) 12 hours (low power, logging mode)

· Wireless Range: 250 feet line-of-sight

· Memory: 30,000 data readings

· Durability: 2 m (6 ft) drop protection

· Dimensions: 3.8 x 3.8 x 1.5 cm (1.5 x 1.5 x 0.6 in)

· Weight: 17 g (0.6 oz)

* For specific sensor specifications, check out the following link! https://www.thepocketlab.com/specs

Cost

$148.00

About the Authors

Edwin P. Christmann is a professor and chairman of the secondary education department and graduate coordinator of the mathematics and science teaching program at Slippery Rock University in Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania. Marie Ellis is a graduate student at Slippery Rock University in Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania.