March 16

Will it Float?

The concept of buoyancy has long held great appeal for cognitive scientists. In the 1920s, Jean Piaget devoted a great deal of his study to children’s ideas about why some objects sink and others float. Piaget’s analyses of children’s misconceptions provided a foundation for more contemporary research into understandings of the physical world. In the 1930s, Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky observed the ways that children built knowledge about natural phenomena by working in groups or through guided instruction. In the 1970s and 1980s, educational psychologists began to develop a pedagogical model for teaching that, in many ways, blends the work of these two pioneers. Known as conceptual change theory or constructivism, this approach is organized around situations that allow children to frame their beliefs about how things work, explore concepts, test their ideas, and ask questions about the results of their explorations. These cognitive exercises are at the core of good science instruction.

Ms. Sealy and the second grade students have been involved in their own constructivist studies in a series of activities that harken back to Piaget’s work in early 20th century Europe. During one recent science class, Ms. Sealy brought out a picture book entitled Who Sank the Boat? The story follows a familiar folk tale pattern in which a series of characters (in this case, a menagerie of animals) climb into a boat, one after another. As each passenger enters the small vessel, the title question assumes greater significance. “Look at the picture,” one observant student remarked, “the boat is getting low down to the water!” She was right; on each page, the gunwales of the boat dropped closer and closer to the surface of the pond. Finally the boat capsized under the weight of its animal cargo.

An enthusiastic discussion ensued, in which the children explained that no individual animal was responsible for the situation. “Let’s think about how we could make a boat that would hold a lot of animals,” Ms. Sealy said. She divided the group into pairs and gave each team a sheet of foil paper. The children talked excitedly, making plans for their boats. Some teams chose to double the foil paper, creating a smaller but thicker surface. Others found ways of rolling the edges of the paper to create depth for their vessels. Techniques and finesse varied, as did the reasoning for the designs that emerged. When the children were satisfied with their final products, they launched the boats into a tub of water, then loaded them with small plastic animals. They compared their results, noticing which designs collapsed, which were well-balanced, which held the most animals, and which stayed afloat. Their discoveries, combined with prior experiences and observations about floating and sinking, will become additional knowledge in their growing schemas about how the world works.

February 17

Next Wednesday, while the rest of the school is on vacation, a group of associate teachers will be immersed in a day of science with veteran teacher David Downing. Their all-day class is the second in a series of intensive explorations of the process and philosophy of science education.

As many people know, our teacher training program combines a year-long classroom internship with full-time masters studies through Lesley University. More than half of the students’ coursework takes place at Belmont Day School during seminar-style classes that meet on Wednesday afternoons and Friday mornings. The associates complete the balance of their credits at Lesley’s Cambridge campus on weekday evenings or on weekends. This year, we have added a new course, “Science in the Elementary School: Thinking With Evidence,” to our on-site program for elementary education majors.

David organized the syllabus around several key objectives. First, he wanted to provide experiences and resources related to the relevance of science in society and in the classroom. Second, he prepared activities and explorations that would engage the associates in genuine scientific thinking processes. Finally, he has incorporated readings and discussions about pedagogical approaches to teaching science.

He started the course earlier this month with another full day of investigation. David began the morning by bouncing a tennis ball on the floor of the conference room. “What would you want to know about how this ball bounces?” he asked. That simple action, followed by David’s open-ended question, began a lengthy and energetic exploration. David brought out balls made of different materials and challenged the associate teachers to ask questions about the science of bouncing: “Would there be a difference in the height of the bounce if we dropped a ball on the table versus the floor?” was one of the suggestions. In pairs, the associates designed an experiment to test their ideas, and planned a method for collecting data. In the afternoon, the group trekked out to the nature trail. They spent the first portion of their walk engaged in careful observation of the setting. Once they were oriented, David led them back through the path with the challenge to identify three living things and three non-living things.

The hands-on physics lesson and the outdoor nature observation led to a conversation about methods for engaging students in authentic science. David noted that many people bring their own preconceptions to scientific study. “Sometimes those ideas are incorrect, and we need to find ways of guiding students to understand the way things really work,” David said. As they proceed through this semester, our associates will have many opportunities to think like scientists—and like science teachers.

Universal Design, Student Assessment, Differentiation, and Student Engagement
Our fourth annual Summer Educator’s Institute