Presentation Tools Review

I tried several websites including Prezent it, My Brain Shark, and Prezi.
The use of Prezent it was very agonizing. I could not find a tutorial. I usually like tutorials, so I became frustrated quickly. I would rank Prezent it as unfriendly. Therefore, I moved on to My Brain Shark.
I browsed my brain shark some. I thought it would be a great tool to use. I was excited about being able to voice over the power points I already have. I like the idea of being able to embed videos in the PowerPoint also not just a link to a website that may not be available when you need it. I still think this will be a great tool, but feel it will possibly take more time than I currently have to learn. Therefore, I will be checking it out more during the next break. I did notice that there fees with My Brain Shark if you want your material secured from the public and even more if you want their website to store your work.
I went to the Prezi website next and decided to try it. I downloaded the software and proceeded to work on a short presentation. It is user friendly, and has great effects. I did have a bit of trouble with the actual show after I placed my path. I will have to try to work on that detail. Although having a minor set back , I enjoyed using this site. I would rank it user friendly and enjoyable. I like the open canvas type style to work on. I hate everything in one position. I am not sure this has very much option for collaboration because I did not see any reference to it. I know it is accessible from home and I am still checking to see if the school will let me use it. There is a block on anything like this unless approved by the board of education. Just a bit of red tape, but reasonable. I think it will get the students attention with the movement and progression of views. Keep it short and sweet. Add lots of color and action. I did not find where it would do short videos or sound, but will be looking to see if I can use those with it. It does have fees; however, it seems to be free for educators. This site deserves a plus in my book.

21st-Century Technology in the Classroom

Creating areas of 21st century technology for students seems to be something students are already to engage. Most students love to explore computers and what can be accomplished on them. I found two new exciting websites contributing to force and motion. The first website connects to previous information from this physical science course http://classroom.jc-schools.net/sci-units/force.htm#8 where there are opportunities to construct a roller coaster. However, I found many other areas to explore on this site such as a skateboarding video with force and motion information as well as STEM career information. I found where there are gradient and speed and velocity areas too. This is an interactive site with teacher lesson plans and activities available. The second site I found was from a high school website www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/. by a teacher who has it interactive with animation. I found interesting and engaging. I will be able to incorporate it in my classroom. I found some power points and other demonstration type of websites that I will include at the bottom. However, I think we have been exposed to many good sites from this course we are taking.
I problem I may have in implementing these website is the new school I will be at will have limited access to technology in the classroom. There is no LCD in my room and only seven for the entire school. I will find a way.
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/00000084
http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Topic_3.html
http://school.discoveryeducation.com/lessonplans/programs/forcesandmotion/http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/project706_57.html

Heat Insulators

In the experiment exploring heat transfer, I used four identical mugs, four rubber bands, a four-cup measuring cup, and the microwave. The insulators I decided on were a chamois cloth, freezer baggie, printer paper, and heavy-duty foil. I chose these thinking they would be close because of the thickness of material. I hypothesized that the aluminum foil would be the best insulator. I found two comparative results in my experiment. I first used the microwave to individually heat up each cup, but they did not come out to be the same temperature. I had to start over and use the four cup measuring cup to get them all the same temp. I did the experiment three times. I discovered the paper and plastic were close in comparison when temperatures were taken with an average of 84 degrees F, as well as the foil and the chamois cloth with an average of 98 degrees F. I found my hypothesis was true the foil was a better insulator three out of three tries. However, I noted that the chamois cloth was the same temperature as the foil two out of three tries. This knowledge assist in recognizing the chamois and foil are both good insulators for heat transfer during the cooling process (Tillery, Enger, & Ross, 2008 p.83).
Observations I noted on each time I checked the experiment was the chamois cloth would absorb the condensation from the molecules that had been evaporated in contrast to the foil and plastic which collected the condensation on the insulator. I had expected the chamois to trap more heat than the paper; however, I had not expected it to insulate as well as the foil. I realize the thickness of the cloth assisted in the insulation for this experiment, and the types of insulator used affect heat transfer.
I specifically want students to learn the differences in conduction, convection, and radiation. I think I now understand it better since I teach seventh grade Life science. When I had to write it in my response for class, I had to be able to understand it. I think this is a good experiment to get the students to understand the differences and I think I reached my goal to understand them. I would like student s to be able to connect this information to their everyday life whether they are cooking, trying to keep food from spoiling, taking a trip to friends; I think understanding the differences in the insulators and how heat is transferred will assist them in taking care of personal needs.
I concluded there were three types of heat transferring energies in this experiment starting with conduction where the water particles respond to other particles in the cups and insulators where heat transferred to the solid. The second came as convection happening in gases and liquids only rolling the molecules that are cohesive (Tillery, Enger, & Ross, 2008 p. 77). The third type of heat transfer was radiation happening in the empty space between the water and the insulator where water vapors are free to move around rapidly bouncing off one another (Laureate Education 2007).

Swinging Pendulums

The question I chose was which pendulum will come to rest more quickly a lighter or heavier pendulum? I created a test using the materials from the science kit from Walden materials. The materials include three washers of varying masses, nylon string one meter in length, one broom handle, two chairs, data table, and stopwatch. I created a data table to record findings and used a stopwatch to determine the period for each pendulum in motion. I began by placing the broom handle balanced between two chairs, a string 17 centimeters long tied to the broom handle in the middle and a washer tied to the other to create the pendulum. I raised the washer to 22 centimeters high and let it swing. I used a stopwatch to time the movement of the different washers. I tried the experiment with three different mass washers, and tried the experiment three times for each washer. I recorded each washer’s movement time. To my surprise, the washer with the least mass came to rest quickest. This required me to do a bit more research in my book. I thought the mass had to be part of the missing link for me. I found force equals mass times acceleration, but could not understand how gravitational pull had not stopped the larger mass quicker. Then upon reading over the second law of motion, I found that inertia was the factor I had not accounted for in my hypothesis, “The greater the mass the greater the resistance to change in velocity” (Tillery, Enger, and Ross, 2008 p. 41). What I discovered was that the more mass something has the more force it takes to move it. However, it also takes more force to stop its momentum, which was the answer to why it takes the washer with more mass longer to stop its momentum. As I realized I was trying to use the wrong equation, I discovered the momentum equals mass times velocity or p=mv; therefore, the answer makes perfect since that the washer with more mass will stay in motion longer because it has more momentum” (Tillery, Enger, and Ross, 2008 p. 43).The experiment went well as a whole. I think it is simple enough for students to get the understanding. The only problem with the experiment is getting the string the same length every time you change the washers. It is difficult to perform the experiment by oneself, so I would use partners.Since I learned much from the experiment and had little difficulty the set up and performance of the task I would not make any changes. I would have to explore if I needed to give more instructions to my students. I came up with the experiment; therefore, I am not sure if the students would devise a different plan. I would try it and then revise accordingly. Since I teach Life Science and very little physics, I would have to try it with students before I could make specific changes.I would set this experiment up using the internet site from this week’s resource by having students predict what the outcome of the swinging motion results from different lengths of a mass. I would also have students do some reading about inertia and momentum. These are particular helpful in this assignment.An area this affects students personally is potential energy changed to kinetic energy. They could transfer knowledge that even though once the washer is let go and there is kinetic energy it lessens with each swing. We would discuss why one should not step out in front of a child that is swinging. We could discuss what size child the student might be able to stop swinging without being hurt. Then students could develop a model of a ride in an amusement park that used the energy from a pendulum motion.

Swinging Pendulums

The question I chose was which pendulum will come to rest more quickly a lighter or heavier pendulum? I created a test using the materials from the science kit from Walden materials. The materials include three washers of varying masses, nylon string one meter in length, one broom handle, two chairs, data table, and stopwatch. I created a data table to record findings and used a stopwatch to determine the period for each pendulum in motion. I began by placing the broom handle balanced between two chairs, a string 17 centimeters long tied to the broom handle in the middle and a washer tied to the other to create the pendulum. I raised the washer to 22 centimeters high and let it swing. I used a stopwatch to time the movement of the different washers. I tried the experiment with three different mass washers, and tried the experiment three times for each washer. I recorded each washer’s movement time. To my surprise, the washer with the least mass came to rest quickest. This required me to do a bit more research in my book. I thought the mass had to be part of the missing link for me. I found force equals mass times acceleration, but could not understand how gravitational pull had not stopped the larger mass quicker. Then upon reading over the second law of motion, I found that inertia was the factor I had not accounted for in my hypothesis, “The greater the mass the greater the resistance to change in velocity” (Tillery, Enger, and Ross, 2008 p. 41). What I discovered was that the more mass something has the more force it takes to move it. However, it also takes more force to stop its momentum, which was the answer to why it takes the washer with more mass longer to stop its momentum. As I realized I was trying to use the wrong equation, I discovered the momentum equals mass times velocity or p=mv; therefore, the answer makes perfect since that the washer with more mass will stay in motion longer because it has more momentum” (Tillery, Enger, and Ross, 2008 p. 43).
The experiment went well as a whole. I think it is simple enough for students to get the understanding. The only problem with the experiment is getting the string the same length every time you change the washers. It is difficult to perform the experiment by oneself, so I would use partners.
Since I learned much from the experiment and had little difficulty the set up and performance of the task I would not make any changes. I would have to explore if I needed to give more instructions to my students. I came up with the experiment; therefore, I am not sure if the students would devise a different plan. I would try it and then revise accordingly. Since I teach Life Science and very little physics, I would have to try it with students before I could make specific changes.I would set this experiment up using the internet site from this week’s resource by having students predict what the outcome of the swinging motion results from different lengths of a mass. I would also have students do some reading about inertia and momentum. These are particular helpful in this assignment.
An area this affects students personally is potential energy changed to kinetic energy. They could transfer knowledge that even though once the washer is let go and there is kinetic energy it lessens with each swing. We would discuss why one should not step out in front of a child that is swinging. We could discuss what size child the student might be able to stop swinging without being hurt. Then students could develop a model of a ride in an amusement park that used the energy from a pendulum motion.

Digestive System Experiment Reflection

Digestive System Experiment Reflection

The 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.

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