Digestive System Experiment ReflectionThe Cheeto’s experiment kept students engaged while learning about the route food takes through the digestive track and processing through organs. Allowing students to participate and not just stand by to watch assisted in engaging them in the activity. They became enthusiastic and willing to participate in the open discussion about the experiment. It enticed them to discuss prior knowledge, and infer new possibilities raising the energy level in the room. The discussion provided inquiry about other organs and systems within the body as Dr. Robert Yager indicates students need to do the inquiring (Laureate, 2009). The open discussion created an opening for me to assess understanding and address misconceptions. Most all middle school students like or enjoy seeing, touching, and smelling gross things. This experiment used three sensory elements for student motivation as indicated by Scott Houston to enhance student engagement (Laureate, 2009). I found that the one time experiment assisted in memory transfer for most students during the online digestive process quiz. The website for students also assisted in correcting any misunderstanding of the organs or their functions as it provided an opportunity to visualize
the information in a different mode. Students enjoyed using technology, drawing diagrams, and organizing information with this lab. The second insert is a diagram by Jordan Allen.Although the experiment was engaging, it has room for improvement. I found that some students had a tough time staying in their seats. I setup seating so everyone could see; however, one student with preferential seating had to be redirected on four different occasions. I adjusted the lesson by stopping more often for students to write. When students were instructed to discuss with partners about how nutrients could get to cells in your fingertips, some groups still wanted to talk about the actual experiment. One other problem became apparent upon entering the computer lab, the amount of letters and numbers needed for students to sign in on the web page created a barrier for students to get started quickly. I will extend the time for writing in journals, since several students seemed to be rushed or did not finish. 
As I consider the designing of this experiment, I gathered state and national standards as well as benchmark data needed to provide frameworks as a guide, not just mandates for the lesson (Pratt, 2001). Developing an instructional inquiry was fun and interesting. I designed the digestive system quiet easily with the help of a health teacher from another school. The next step was to create questions I wanted my students to be able to answer by using the standards. Then I worked with the science collaboration group at school to narrow and reword several questions to better focus on the standards. It took several hours to prepare this lesson. I was the first of the group to use the lesson, and I am eager to find out what my colleagues decide on the outcome.
In addition to designing the experiment, the implementation took a bit of preparation. There was the computer lab to check out, instructions to type, design the graphic organizer, make copies, and gather the materials to have a lab. I gathered safety equipment complete with a list of possible safety issues (Buxton and Provenzo, 2007, (p. 146). As I looked over the structured inquiry by Banchi and Bell (2008), I realized I had covered the basics with this experiment by using observation while collecting data during the process of the flow of food through the digestive track (p. 27). Then with guided questions, I elicited student responses and pair sharing to assist with inferences to the next level. I also provided another level of inquiry when we went to the computer lab for students to gain knowledge individually. I used open ended questions to get students to connect information from prior knowledge and new information to infer where and how nutrients travels as well as what other systems are involved. These types of questions are considered higher order thinking questions according to Blooms taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). This embedded work is from Jordan Allens’ second page questions.
As I consider the designing of this experiment, I gathered state and national standards as well as benchmark data needed to provide frameworks as a guide, not just mandates for the lesson (Pratt, 2001). Developing an instructional inquiry was fun and interesting. I designed the digestive system quiet easily with the help of a health teacher from another school. The next step was to create questions I wanted my students to be able to answer by using the standards. Then I worked with the science collaboration group at school to narrow and reword several questions to better focus on the standards. It took several hours to prepare this lesson. I was the first of the group to use the lesson, and I am eager to find out what my colleagues decide on the outcome.
In addition to designing the experiment, the implementation took a bit of preparation. There was the computer lab to check out, instructions to type, design the graphic organizer, make copies, and gather the materials to have a lab. I gathered safety equipment complete with a list of possible safety issues (Buxton and Provenzo, 2007, (p. 146). As I looked over the structured inquiry by Banchi and Bell (2008), I realized I had covered the basics with this experiment by using observation while collecting data during the process of the flow of food through the digestive track (p. 27). Then with guided questions, I elicited student responses and pair sharing to assist with inferences to the next level. I also provided another level of inquiry when we went to the computer lab for students to gain knowledge individually. I used open ended questions to get students to connect information from prior knowledge and new information to infer where and how nutrients travels as well as what other systems are involved. These types of questions are considered higher order thinking questions according to Blooms taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). This embedded work is from Jordan Allens’ second page questions.
In conclusion, I will continue to build on this experiment. I believe the interest it gained from students assisted with inquiry and lit a fire for some students to understand how these processes work. The students were engaged and enthusiastic. It was enjoyable for me as well. I have begun designing other opportunities for inquiry for my students. Sometimes the students complain it is too hard, but I am using their interest to get them involved. When they had to describe how to throw a baseball, dribble a basketball, kick a soccer ball, or dance step using muscles and bones they were much more willing to try to find the actual parts of the body that moved. Inquiry has assisted me in finding new ways to reach my students using their interest. One process I will continue to use is the five E’s lesson plan discussed by Hammerman, (2006) as it provides an in depth outline to create and develop high quality lessons (p.82).
Resources
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Buxton, C. A., & Provenzo, E. F., Jr. (2007). Teaching science in elementary & middle school: A cognitive and cultural approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hammerman, E. L. (2006). Becoming a better science teacher: 8 steps to high quality instruction and student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Program Two. The Nature of Science. [Motion Picture]. Interview with the Experts. Baltimore, MD: Author
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Program Five. The Nature of Science. [Motion Picture]. “Science Inquiry: Classroom Demonstration”
. Baltimore, MD: Author
Pratt, H. (2001). The Role of the Science Leader in Implementing Standards-Based Science Programs. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://learningcenter.nsta.org/my_learning_center/my_library.aspx?type=bc
Resources
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Buxton, C. A., & Provenzo, E. F., Jr. (2007). Teaching science in elementary & middle school: A cognitive and cultural approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hammerman, E. L. (2006). Becoming a better science teacher: 8 steps to high quality instruction and student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Program Two. The Nature of Science. [Motion Picture]. Interview with the Experts. Baltimore, MD: Author
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Program Five. The Nature of Science. [Motion Picture]. “Science Inquiry: Classroom Demonstration”
. Baltimore, MD: Author
Pratt, H. (2001). The Role of the Science Leader in Implementing Standards-Based Science Programs. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://learningcenter.nsta.org/my_learning_center/my_library.aspx?type=bc
