Compare SAE curriculum to AIMS or GEMS curriculum.
You have seen how the math and science is integrated within the SAE curriculum (Jet Toy). Compare this to an AIMS or GEMS curriculum (found in the TRC).
For this blog, I compared the Jet Toy curriculum to the AIMS curriculum found in "Off the Wall Science." In one activity called "Aluminum Foil Boats," students are asked to design a boat and construct it from a 10cm x 10cm piece of aluminum foil. The objective for this activity is to see what design would be the best to carry weight (pennies) and still remain buoyant. The students have to consider the thickness of the foil (in example, how many times should they fold the foil) as well as distribution of the weights. When considering the jet toy curriculum, math and science are integrated throughout the data collection and graphing. In the AIMS curriculum, it requires students to take area into consideration. One part of the discussion asks students "if you doubled the size (area) of the foil, do you think that your boat will support twice the number of pennies, if so, why?" I think you could incorporate even more math into this lesson by having the students create a spread sheet with area and weight carried and create a graph expressing their relationships. Overall, this lesson is quite similar to the jet toy experiment. Both activities have the students participating in a hands-on experiment, designing vehicles and running tests on their efficiency and capabilities. I can't say at this point whether I like one curriculum or another better, but I am interested in exploring both in more detail.
The Jet Toy curriculum was supposed to be inquiry based, right? But I had the feeling that we were told how to make the car and what data to collect. So perhaps it is not inquiry? Or perhaps we did an abbreviated version of the lab, and if we had done it with students, we would have made it inquiry? Kids could design their own cars etc. Also, we were not told how much weight to put in the cars or how many pumps of air into the balloon. We were able to decide how to do the variables. The math involved recording time and distance (measurement) and then creating graphs so that conclusions could be reached. For example, the cars go faster (at least in the first 2 m) when they have a bigger nozzle. This is true whether or not there is a weight. Weight slows the cars. I viewed the Math Around the World Teacher's Guide (507.8) from the TRC. It is for grades 5-8. This specific curriculum is more multicultural than the Jet Toy project, featuring math games from around the world. However, I'm not familiar with the rest of the SAE curriculum. Like the Jet Toy project, the emphasis is on organized play rather than boring math 'drill and kill.' The Jet Toy project was designed specifically to teach force and motion, which is part of the science standards. It also used measurement, algebra (speed = distance/time), and graphing. The games in this GEMS book do make kids think mathematically, but it does not state anywhere what exact math skill they are using. Surely they are using math process standards such as connection (to Social Studies) and communication (with the game players). It does not outline specifically what standards it meets, but it does have a small section at the start of each lesson that answers "Where's The Math In This Game?" I'm unable to comment on others' blogs, because no one has written yet! I hope my blog is on the right track, the question is pretty open-ended!
The AIMS Curriculum that I checked out was "Water Precious Water" for grades 2-6. "Down the Drain" on page 38 addressed water conservation through students measuring the amount of water wasted while waiting for it to get warm. Students use the following math skills in this lesson: whole number operations, averaging, projecting data, and measuring and the following science processes: predicting, estimating, and collecting and analyzing data. The jet toy project addressed similar processes like predicting, measuring, averaging, and graphing but this lesson touches on more processes in a more thorough approach. This lesson also has a beginning, middle, and end with a conclusion as to ways to solve the problem of wasted water. In the jet toy activity, we spent so much time with graphing on excel that I don’t think we ever came to a conclusion with so much different data. The jet toy activity dealt with measuring and physics while this “Down the Drain” activity deals with more life science. Although these are two very different lessons, they both are inquiry-based with a lot of opportunities for class discussion and hands-on experimenting.
Ok, so I will now comment on Nichole's future blog entry. I agree that a lot of lessons include many stipulations in order for them to work out. Maybe that's okay if you're working with older students, but with younger kids, even those in fifth and sixth grade, I think they would struggle with all the rules and regulations. Sometimes I read a lesson and I feel like it's child-proof. As teachers, we just need to sift through lessons and find the level-appropriate ones, or make adaptations to those a little too advanced.
I compared a lesson from AIMS activities called Where On Earth: Determining latitude and longitude, Grades 5-9. Compared to the jet toy activity this lesson seems more complex. It did not include a challenge letter to the students like the jet toy challenge presented. I liked that because students were pulled into the activity and knew what was expected. This lesson has a lot of requirements to meet in order to conduct the experiment. For example measurements need to be taken at solar noon when most students are not in class and shadows must be facing nearly north to get an accurate reading. I like the idea of students finding their positions on earth but the large grade range (5-9) leans heavily on the students having or learning a lot of background knowledge in order to participate in and conduct the lesson accurately. Helena's blog left me with many questions since I did not see the particular lesson she mentions. However, I think that as we become more comfortable with a curriculum we will discover what works and what changes are needed. Also after we see how students respond to a lesson we can then reflect on the differences between curriculums more easily.
For this weeks blog, I compared the Jet Toy curriculum to the AIMS curriculum called "Cookie Combos" in the book titled "Just for the Fun of it." In this activity the students were given a specific amount of "cookies" and they needed to find how many different ways there were tof count the cookis in the arrangement. The students were given 25 cookies and were able to work in groups to come up with as many different ways as they could. They were using more of the skills counting and problem solving in this particular lesson. I really liked this lesson because it really makes the students think of creative ways to group the cookies and not just into sections of 5, etc. They needed to think outside the box and go above and beyond their original "plan of attack". After the groups were given enough planning and thinking time, they discussed their finding in a large group and counted the different ways. I think this lesson is more based on math skills then science skills but problem solving is a large part of both this activity and the Jet Toy. Overall, i think this lesson is a great hands on activity and really makes the students use their problem solving skils as well as communication, group work and counting skills as assessed in the book.
In response to Nicoles blog, it does sound like your lesson is very complex and requires the students to have background knowledge of the subjects. Although it seems very hard and more complex then the Jet Toys, I still think that for the upper grades, they would get alot out of the lesson and come away with a great expierence.
After reviewing a lesson plan from an AIMS curriculum called "What's in the Air?" I personally prefer the approach of the SAE curriculum to the integration of math and science. The AIMS lesson that I chose was from a curriculum titled "Our Wonderful World" for grades 5-9 and used an environmental studies approach to math and science integration. I had the same experience as Helena in that the lesson was not specific in how math skills were particularly used. There is a section that lists number operations, averaging, and graphing as math skills contained in the lesson but there was little elaboration on how those were implemented, connected or even necessary. I also think that the science and math concepts were better complements in the jet toy activity; they were intertwined so both were necessary to develop a conceptual understanding of force and motion. They worked together in the SAE curriculum, versus simply existing within the same lesson. Although I do prefer the SAE curriculum, there were some similarities in the approaches of both. They involved the collection of data and then asked students to record the data in some sort of graph in order to share their findings with others and observe patterns or trends, the jet to with change in speed or distance traveled and the air lesson with changes in quality and pollutants in the air. It seems to me that both provide opportunities for inquiry. The only concern I have, both from my experience with the jet toy and after reading the AIMS curriculum, is somehow ensuring that students are observing and accurately recording comparable data. If everyone is doing a differnet investgation, you cannot develop any patterns/trends or compare results with someone else. Unfortunately, I personally don't know how to make sure that happens.
For this blog, I compared the Jet Toy curriculum from class with space lesson from the GEMS "Living with a Star" curriculum entitled "Learning about Risks." The lesson was part of a long series of activities on solar energy and radiation. Students had previously learned about UV exposure and this lesson asked students to explore how scientists and statisticans find out how harmful UV exposure (and other natural phenomenon/everyday activities) is, how likely are the health risks from UV exposure, and how many people will be affected by it. Using risk scales and scientific criteria for each of these factors, students rate the risk of each behavior or event and calculate a "final" rank of risk for the situation. The topic is tough to teach in an inquiry-based manner as students cannot actually test or experiment with the situations. However, the lesson is as inquiry as it can get by allowing students to use their judgement with the ranking scale (no single "right" answers), allows them to formulate questions on situations they create and "test" them with the ranking scale, and articulate their reasoning for the ranking. The lesson does integrate some math into the science of risk. The concept of probability, ratios, and proportions, plays a dominant role in how scientists and mathematicans assess risk. Students practice these concepts as they calculate and determine the risk of an activity. They must also compare these results in order to assess the risk of a situation in relation to another. I liked how the lesson showed students that risk can actually be calculated mathematically and looked at in a scientific manner, rather than just seen as a subjective decision. The lesson was different from the Jet Toy activity in that students did not have to physically measure a variable, such as distance or time or graph results. However, the Finding Risks activity did measure variables, it is just that the variables of risk were measured according to a set scale. Relationships between activities were addressed through proportions, ratios, and probability, instead of with measurement and graphical representation. Overall, I thought the lesson was excellent for a 6-8 grade classroom for integrating math and science and bringing inquiry to traditionally non-inquiry based lessons.
First, I have to confess - I brought the AIMS book home (so Georgia, if you're looking for it, I have it, sorry!). Second - I REALLY LIKE THIS BOOK! The book I have is an AIMS book titled "Field Detectives: Investigating Playground Habitats" The title sounds like fun and I'm sure the actual lessons really are! The SAE Jet Toy curriculum was fun, but it was limited to being inside and even though cars had some differences, they were all pretty much built the same. This entire book is about exploring the living habitat that surrounds the students everyday at school. And what I love about the whole idea in general is that students can explore at home these same ideas and not have to have any special supplies - just go outside! Okay -the less I'm focusing on is one titled "A Special Plot" (ha, how fun is that!). Here's how it works, students would have previously explored their entire playground and discovered ways they know "signs of life" around the playground, such as bird droppings, ant hills, etc. This activity requires students to focus on one small section of the school playground - their "plot". They use hand lenses in groups to study their plot, they record data such as the plants & animals they saw, the "evidence of life", the measurement of their plot, etc. Then, back in the class, the students take their lists and compare & contrast what was in their plot with another team. there is a lot more to this, but what I particularly like about this AIMS book is that it, like the SAE curriculum, seamlessly integrated math and science. The students involved in the "special Plot" lesson are working towards NSES standards as well as NCTM standards. I think it helps students see that math is practical in everything we do, it's not just about getting the right answer, it's about solving the problems, or discovery, about life. In this case, students are using a math concept - venn diagrams - to make inferences about the animals and plants that live on their playground; while at the same time using science to discover that their playground is a living habitat. Final thought: the lessons in this book are in line with science as inquiry, while simultaneously, and seamlessly, integrating math concepts, but also, I think these lessons could be used to teach the value of respect for the environment (so maybe Social Studies could be brought in somehow...?). See you all on Monday!
I compared the jet toy lesson with GEMS “Acid Rain.” All the lessons in the book are about acid rain, and seem to be more focused on scientific aspects rather than mathematics. One specific lesson has students test the pH of rain. Students test the pH of normal distilled water, as well as distilled water that students have blown into with a straw. After testing the pH of normal water, students then test the pH of acidic water. Learning about characteristics of acids and bases would meet the NSE standard of physical science, just as the jet toy lesson did. Math is incorporated into the lesson by having students place numbers on the pH scale, and moving a certain amount of numbers forward, backwards, or equidistantly. This part of the lesson would meet number and operations standard for math.
I liked how the jet toy lesson provided lots of room for student discovery and hands on experimenting. The acid rain lesson, didn’t appear to provide as many opportunities for student breakthroughs and experimenting on their own. Although I liked the jet toy lesson, I also agree with Helena somewhat, that the building the “jet” aspect of the lesson didn’t allow for inquiry.
When I stepped into the TRC the other day it was overflowing with other students. I left and planned on coming back at a later time. When sitting at home last night. googling around, I came upon some AWESOME websites; one of which was a great GEMS website called www.thegateway.org . A lesson that I took from this website was from the GEMS curriculum. It has been created for the 5th and 6th grades. The title of the lesson is “Eratosthenes and Us, It Just Keeps Going, and Going, and Going…” The GEMS project that I researched was actually a unit that spread over 2 years. It started in 5th grade and strung out through the 6th. This unit integrated science, math, social studies, art, and literature. Compared to the jet toy activity, I felt that the GEMS activity covered a lot more important things. Obviously the Jet Toy activity was an hour, while the unit I looked at was over a span of 2 school years. What I found was that in the jet toy activity we were told exactly what to do when making our toys. No room for creativity, personalizing our jet toys. I think it would be more inquiry based if we were given the materials, and then sent outside to do it, where there were more room to have a difference in elevation of the string, and be able to make the jet toy in our own way. I think we should let the kids figure out how to move the jet toy. I also think that when it comes to variables such as how many pumps of air, and how much weight, which we could have limited options so that the whole class is some what on the same page. This way it is easier to graph if we were to add graphing into the lesson. One thing I noticed about the GEMS activity was that it asked open ended questions. Just one of these in was “Are the Sun’s rays really parallel?” Even better………….this question came from a student! This project tied into Egypt, Columbus, and Marco Polo (history/social studies). This project also tied in science and math by collecting and processing data. The students also had to assess fro data quality, communicate their findings with others, and use all data to calculate final calculations. I really likes his activity because it was extremely hands on, with great structure.
I compared the Jet Toy curriculum to the AIMS curriculum in the book "Out of This World Grades 5-9." I like how the table of contents is broken down two ways. The first is a standard numerical table of contents and the other is math skills and science processes. I found with this set of lessons that there was not any real inquiry. It seemed like the inquiry was asking their own questions, but they wouldn't be testing those questions. The integration of math and science is apparent in every lesson. Each lesson has mathematical computations that go along with what is being taught. For one of the lessons: "Planetary Scavenger Hunt," the students begin by establishing the diameter of earth as 1 unit. They then have to calculate the other planets' relative diameter and find objects that have the same diameter. The problem that I see with this unit is that Pluto is still included as a planet. All of the student pages have Pluto and some of the directions included comparing pluto to the other planets. With a little work any teacher could recreate the pages without Pluto. The grade range, 5-9 is shown through the range of difficulty in the math computations and the science concepts.
I am comparing Jet Toy with the Aims Curriculum. Just leafing through the book shows that it could be a very fun resource to have in your classrooms. I happened upon the one called Machine Shop for grades 5-9. I was having difficulty deciding between the ‘catapult’ and the ‘slippery surfaces’ but have decided upon Slippery Surfaces. It compares to the force and motion or ‘friction’ within the lesson. Mathematically, it is the measurement of angles, has averaging, and graphing. Scientifically, it deals with physical science and simple machines. The math/ science process skills are observing, collecting, recording, interpreting data, and drawing conclusions, very much like our Jet Toy experience. It deals with “friction as the force that acts to resist motion” (AIMS) which we discussed with the jet toy as well. Children will compare the differences between sliding friction (pennies) and rolling friction (film canisters). How about film canisters filled with pennies? The activity is in groups of 3-4, over one class period, using protractors for measurement, and vegetable oil for a lubricant. The major concepts are: “Energy is used to accomplish work. Work is done when something is moved. Friction is a force that resists motion. Friction can be reduced” (AIMS). The use of the protractor determines the angle of the surface you are allowing your pennies and canisters to ‘slide’ upon. I would have preferred that we had been allowed to design and make our own jet-toys. I did not have as many questions or variables about the actual action of the jet-toy, although it was a fun activity. I think kids would be more intrigued by finding out how steep a hill has to be to make their ‘toy’ slip or roll faster. You could even integrate the two lessons together, and use the jet toy (without the balloon), with angled measurements, and determine which surfaces (sandpaper is one), have the least resistance and the most resistance. After reading everyone’s comments, it sounds like everyone came up with some awesome lesson plans! I am looking forward to being able to leaf through more of these booklets.
I looked a Science unit using the GEM curriculum. The students were investigating the properties of a substance called "Oobleck," which is a goo substance made from household materials. What I liked about the lessons was that the students were using inquiry processs to investigate the properties of the goo. They were given important assignments reguarding the goo. They had to problem solve and brainstorm things about the Oobleck. However I did not think that the book included as many integration ideas as it could have. Math would be the easiest one to include, especially if you had the students assist in making the goo. As I was reading through, I was able to think of many ways to integrate, language arts, math, science, and social studies all together, however I was disappointed in the lack of suggestions for integration in the book. I felt that the Jet Toy activity already combined science and math in an easier way than this particular GEM book. I think the GEM books could be a useful starting place, but would need to be altered to make a really good integrated lesson/unit.
I compared the jet toy curriculum to a lesson in the AIMS curriculum. It is a short lesson designed for fifth graders about classifying leaves into groups according to their properties. It does a great job integrating math and science together. The lesson provides an excellent study guide for the teacher to help the students learn the new vocabulary (simple and compound leaves, pinnate and palmate, etc). The lesson meets the NSE standard of life science and asks students to observe and compare their leaves into properties such as texture, color, shape, number of veins, and number of edges. The students also measure the length and width of their leaves and then graph their data. (Mathematics).
This would be a great lesson to take students on a field trip outside to observe and collect their own leaves and needles. After having them divide their leaves into various properties, it would be important to have them explain why they selected each group by using the vocabulary they have previously acquired. As I looked through other lessons in the AIMS curriculum, I started to realize how easy the lessons are to understand and how thorough each one gets into a topic or concept. I will definitely be referring back to it as a resource for other math and science lesson plans.
I will compare the Jet toy curriculum to in the AIMS machine shop activities, specifically the "All Wound Up" lesson plan. In this lesson plan, students create a thread-spool tractor with which they will study the role of friction on the length that the spool travels. This is similar to the Jet Toy curriculum in that students study factors that effect distance. It is much more specific in its focus however, only studying the role of friction on distance traveled while the Jet Toy Curriculum studied speed, distance, carry weight, and length of time traveled without specifying that friction was what was at stake. Because the focus in "All Wound Up," is narrower, they are able to study friction in relation to distance of travel in a much more thorough way. The Jet Toy curriculum seemed to leave friction unmentioned though it was a very important factor. This shows that the Jet Toy CUrriculum was less teacher centered and more inquiry based. Both lessons seem to provide allot of teacher centered guidance about how to first design the object and then give kids plenty of materials and time to find out how to solve the problem. The AIMS curriculum simply focuses specificaly on friction. Both lessons focus on finding ways to create "fairness" in the tests by creating control factors. Both lessons require students to observe, record, graph, make hypothesis, apply, and generalize their data, and share their results with others in the classroom while comparing and conrasting results. The friction lesson plan goes into the specifics of what affects friction more than the jet toy curriculum did for any of its factors and is less inquiry based and more teacher centered.
I chose an AIMS book for grades 4-9 titled "Soap Films and Bubbles." The book begins with a chart of math skills and a chart of science skills. Both charts list all the activities in the book and which skills they cover - how handy! You can easily see which lessons are more basic and which really get into math and/or science. I chose one called "Stretching Out" because it covered 5 math and 5 science skills, including predicting, measuring and comparing. The key question is: How far will the soap film between two rings stretch? During the lesson, students discover that there is a mathematical relationship between the size of two equal rings and the distance the soap film will stretch between them. It sounds like fun to me! Kids would have a great time with the bubbles while discovering order and relationships in our natural world.
This particular lesson doesn't give the students much flexibility with variables, but there are others in the book that do. Obviously, the jet toy lesson included some flexibility with variables, though, as many other have said, flexibility with the design of the vehicle would also be fun and educational.
I like how Helena said "the emphasis is on organized play rather than boring math drill and kill." Organized play is more like a real life situation and students will be able to combine what they are learning in math, science and other subjects. Plus, they're interested, which is the first step in getting them to learn!
I recognized another lesson in this book as one I helped students with in one of my kids' 4th grade classrooms a couple years ago. Using toothpicks and small balls of clay, students made different shapes, dunked them into soapy water, then counted the vertices, faces, etc. that were formed by the bubbles. Great geometry info and the kids had a blast!
In general, I think SAE, AIMS and GEMS all have the same goal of making science and math fun, interrelated, and inquiry-based. Depending on which specific lesson you happen to read, different qualities will show up. But taken as a whole, the result is the same.
I checked out a GEMS curriculum to compare to the jet toy activity. The particular GEMS program I looked was "Terrarium Habitats". The program included five activities all leading up to making a terrarium then adding elements to it, like earthworms and isopods.
Kacie stated that it was difficult to find math integrated with the science in her GEMS program. This was also the case with "Terrarium Habitats". It seemed to be more science-centered. The jet toy activity easily integrated math with the graphs and measurement that was required. The jet toy activity was also more integrated in that the math and science was done together and connected. The car had to be altered to do the measurement. The GEMS math activities are separate.
The AIMS activities seem to be more integrated. Janna's AIMS curriculum looks more like the jet toy lesson because the math and science seem more integrated.
I brought home an AIMS notebook called "Floaters and Sinkers" that contained lessons on density and volume. One of the lessons that looked like fun to me is called, "See Level". In this lesson, students measure, multiply and divide decimals, interpret data, and average numbers. Students first calculate the volumes of alcohol, motor oil, vegetable oil, water and salt water. After measuring the different volumes, students are asked to predict which liquids would float on which if they were all poured into the same beaker. Then they test their predictions and a discussion is held about the findings. The teacher talks about the usefulness of density measures of liquids to predict their reaction to another liquid. The teacher tells students that the ratio of the density of a liquid to the density of water is called specific gravity.
I do not think that the lesson that I read about was necessary poor, but I do think that it is slightly inferior to the SAE Jet Toy lesson. I feel that the "See Level" lesson could be more student orientated. I think that at the end of the lesson it would be beneficial if students were allowed to ask other questions involving the different liquids, hypothesize an answer, then test their idea. I also wonder if there could be some way to guide students into creating their own way of testing which liquids float on which instead of just telling them to pour all the liquids in one container.
For this particular blog comment I explored the AIMS curriculum for grades 5 through 9 "Fun with foods". One lesson that stuck out particularly was "Waste Not, Want Not!" The purpose of the activity was for students' to determine the percentage of usable and unusable parts of fruit. The math skills involved are graphing, finding percentages, and averaging, and the science included: recording data, estimating, and measuring.
Students' are asked to estimate the mass of the fruit, and the mass of the unpeeled fruit and the left over peel. They then proceed to skin the fruits to discover if their estimations were correct, then they go on to graph their data.
This would be an enjoyable lesson for my students', and would put concepts such as averaging into a more visual form. As far as comparing AIM to jet toy, I think that the jet toy curriculum gives students' an actual mission or problem they need to come to which AIM doesn't. The jet toy is difficult to squeeze into a small window of time, but I could see AIM as being a good resource for a quick, fun, and beneficial lesson.
22 comments:
For this blog, I compared the Jet Toy curriculum to the AIMS curriculum found in "Off the Wall Science." In one activity called "Aluminum Foil Boats," students are asked to design a boat and construct it from a 10cm x 10cm piece of aluminum foil. The objective for this activity is to see what design would be the best to carry weight (pennies) and still remain buoyant. The students have to consider the thickness of the foil (in example, how many times should they fold the foil) as well as distribution of the weights. When considering the jet toy curriculum, math and science are integrated throughout the data collection and graphing. In the AIMS curriculum, it requires students to take area into consideration. One part of the discussion asks students "if you doubled the size (area) of the foil, do you think that your boat will support twice the number of pennies, if so, why?" I think you could incorporate even more math into this lesson by having the students create a spread sheet with area and weight carried and create a graph expressing their relationships. Overall, this lesson is quite similar to the jet toy experiment. Both activities have the students participating in a hands-on experiment, designing vehicles and running tests on their efficiency and capabilities. I can't say at this point whether I like one curriculum or another better, but I am interested in exploring both in more detail.
The Jet Toy curriculum was supposed to be inquiry based, right? But I had the feeling that we were told how to make the car and what data to collect. So perhaps it is not inquiry? Or perhaps we did an abbreviated version of the lab, and if we had done it with students, we would have made it inquiry? Kids could design their own cars etc. Also, we were not told how much weight to put in the cars or how many pumps of air into the balloon. We were able to decide how to do the variables.
The math involved recording time and distance (measurement) and then creating graphs so that conclusions could be reached. For example, the cars go faster (at least in the first 2 m) when they have a bigger nozzle. This is true whether or not there is a weight. Weight slows the cars.
I viewed the Math Around the World Teacher's Guide (507.8) from the TRC. It is for grades 5-8. This specific curriculum is more multicultural than the Jet Toy project, featuring math games from around the world. However, I'm not familiar with the rest of the SAE curriculum. Like the Jet Toy project, the emphasis is on organized play rather than boring math 'drill and kill.'
The Jet Toy project was designed specifically to teach force and motion, which is part of the science standards. It also used measurement, algebra (speed = distance/time), and graphing. The games in this GEMS book do make kids think mathematically, but it does not state anywhere what exact math skill they are using. Surely they are using math process standards such as connection (to Social Studies) and communication (with the game players). It does not outline specifically what standards it meets, but it does have a small section at the start of each lesson that answers "Where's The Math In This Game?"
I'm unable to comment on others' blogs, because no one has written yet! I hope my blog is on the right track, the question is pretty open-ended!
The AIMS Curriculum that I checked out was "Water Precious Water" for grades 2-6. "Down the Drain" on page 38 addressed water conservation through students measuring the amount of water wasted while waiting for it to get warm. Students use the following math skills in this lesson: whole number operations, averaging, projecting data, and measuring and the following science processes: predicting, estimating, and collecting and analyzing data. The jet toy project addressed similar processes like predicting, measuring, averaging, and graphing but this lesson touches on more processes in a more thorough approach. This lesson also has a beginning, middle, and end with a conclusion as to ways to solve the problem of wasted water. In the jet toy activity, we spent so much time with graphing on excel that I don’t think we ever came to a conclusion with so much different data. The jet toy activity dealt with measuring and physics while this “Down the Drain” activity deals with more life science. Although these are two very different lessons, they both are inquiry-based with a lot of opportunities for class discussion and hands-on experimenting.
Ok, so I will now comment on Nichole's future blog entry. I agree that a lot of lessons include many stipulations in order for them to work out. Maybe that's okay if you're working with older students, but with younger kids, even those in fifth and sixth grade, I think they would struggle with all the rules and regulations. Sometimes I read a lesson and I feel like it's child-proof. As teachers, we just need to sift through lessons and find the level-appropriate ones, or make adaptations to those a little too advanced.
I compared a lesson from AIMS activities called Where On Earth: Determining latitude and longitude, Grades 5-9. Compared to the jet toy activity this lesson seems more complex. It did not include a challenge letter to the students like the jet toy challenge presented. I liked that because students were pulled into the activity and knew what was expected.
This lesson has a lot of requirements to meet in order to conduct the experiment. For example measurements need to be taken at solar noon when most students are not in class and shadows must be facing nearly north to get an accurate reading.
I like the idea of students finding their positions on earth but the large grade range (5-9) leans heavily on the students having or learning a lot of background knowledge in order to participate in and conduct the lesson accurately.
Helena's blog left me with many questions since I did not see the particular lesson she mentions. However, I think that as we become more comfortable with a curriculum we will discover what works and what changes are needed. Also after we see how students respond to a lesson we can then reflect on the differences between curriculums more easily.
For this weeks blog, I compared the Jet Toy curriculum to the AIMS curriculum called "Cookie Combos" in the book titled "Just for the Fun of it." In this activity the students were given a specific amount of "cookies" and they needed to find how many different ways there were tof count the cookis in the arrangement. The students were given 25 cookies and were able to work in groups to come up with as many different ways as they could. They were using more of the skills counting and problem solving in this particular lesson. I really liked this lesson because it really makes the students think of creative ways to group the cookies and not just into sections of 5, etc. They needed to think outside the box and go above and beyond their original "plan of attack". After the groups were given enough planning and thinking time, they discussed their finding in a large group and counted the different ways. I think this lesson is more based on math skills then science skills but problem solving is a large part of both this activity and the Jet Toy. Overall, i think this lesson is a great hands on activity and really makes the students use their problem solving skils as well as communication, group work and counting skills as assessed in the book.
In response to Nicoles blog, it does sound like your lesson is very complex and requires the students to have background knowledge of the subjects. Although it seems very hard and more complex then the Jet Toys, I still think that for the upper grades, they would get alot out of the lesson and come away with a great expierence.
After reviewing a lesson plan from an AIMS curriculum called "What's in the Air?" I personally prefer the approach of the SAE curriculum to the integration of math and science. The AIMS lesson that I chose was from a curriculum titled "Our Wonderful World" for grades 5-9 and used an environmental studies approach to math and science integration. I had the same experience as Helena in that the lesson was not specific in how math skills were particularly used. There is a section that lists number operations, averaging, and graphing as math skills contained in the lesson but there was little elaboration on how those were implemented, connected or even necessary. I also think that the science and math concepts were better complements in the jet toy activity; they were intertwined so both were necessary to develop a conceptual understanding of force and motion. They worked together in the SAE curriculum, versus simply existing within the same lesson. Although I do prefer the SAE curriculum, there were some similarities in the approaches of both. They involved the collection of data and then asked students to record the data in some sort of graph in order to share their findings with others and observe patterns or trends, the jet to with change in speed or distance traveled and the air lesson with changes in quality and pollutants in the air. It seems to me that both provide opportunities for inquiry. The only concern I have, both from my experience with the jet toy and after reading the AIMS curriculum, is somehow ensuring that students are observing and accurately recording comparable data. If everyone is doing a differnet investgation, you cannot develop any patterns/trends or compare results with someone else. Unfortunately, I personally don't know how to make sure that happens.
For this blog, I compared the Jet Toy curriculum from class with space lesson from the GEMS "Living with a Star" curriculum entitled "Learning about Risks." The lesson was part of a long series of activities on solar energy and radiation. Students had previously learned about UV exposure and this lesson asked students to explore how scientists and statisticans find out how harmful UV exposure (and other natural phenomenon/everyday activities) is, how likely are the health risks from UV exposure, and how many people will be affected by it. Using risk scales and scientific criteria for each of these factors, students rate the risk of each behavior or event and calculate a "final" rank of risk for the situation. The topic is tough to teach in an inquiry-based manner as students cannot actually test or experiment with the situations. However, the lesson is as inquiry as it can get by allowing students to use their judgement with the ranking scale (no single "right" answers), allows them to formulate questions on situations they create and "test" them with the ranking scale, and articulate their reasoning for the ranking.
The lesson does integrate some math into the science of risk. The concept of probability, ratios, and proportions, plays a dominant role in how scientists and mathematicans assess risk. Students practice these concepts as they calculate and determine the risk of an activity. They must also compare these results in order to assess the risk of a situation in relation to another. I liked how the lesson showed students that risk can actually be calculated mathematically and looked at in a scientific manner, rather than just seen as a subjective decision.
The lesson was different from the Jet Toy activity in that students did not have to physically measure a variable, such as distance or time or graph results. However, the Finding Risks activity did measure variables, it is just that the variables of risk were measured according to a set scale. Relationships between activities were addressed through proportions, ratios, and probability, instead of with measurement and graphical representation.
Overall, I thought the lesson was excellent for a 6-8 grade classroom for integrating math and science and bringing inquiry to traditionally non-inquiry based lessons.
First, I have to confess - I brought the AIMS book home (so Georgia, if you're looking for it, I have it, sorry!).
Second - I REALLY LIKE THIS BOOK!
The book I have is an AIMS book titled "Field Detectives: Investigating Playground Habitats" The title sounds like fun and I'm sure the actual lessons really are! The SAE Jet Toy curriculum was fun, but it was limited to being inside and even though cars had some differences, they were all pretty much built the same. This entire book is about exploring the living habitat that surrounds the students everyday at school. And what I love about the whole idea in general is that students can explore at home these same ideas and not have to have any special supplies - just go outside!
Okay -the less I'm focusing on is one titled "A Special Plot" (ha, how fun is that!). Here's how it works, students would have previously explored their entire playground and discovered ways they know "signs of life" around the playground, such as bird droppings, ant hills, etc. This activity requires students to focus on one small section of the school playground - their "plot". They use hand lenses in groups to study their plot, they record data such as the plants & animals they saw, the "evidence of life", the measurement of their plot, etc. Then, back in the class, the students take their lists and compare & contrast what was in their plot with another team.
there is a lot more to this, but what I particularly like about this AIMS book is that it, like the SAE curriculum, seamlessly integrated math and science. The students involved in the "special Plot" lesson are working towards NSES standards as well as NCTM standards. I think it helps students see that math is practical in everything we do, it's not just about getting the right answer, it's about solving the problems, or discovery, about life. In this case, students are using a math concept - venn diagrams - to make inferences about the animals and plants that live on their playground; while at the same time using science to discover that their playground is a living habitat.
Final thought: the lessons in this book are in line with science as inquiry, while simultaneously, and seamlessly, integrating math concepts, but also, I think these lessons could be used to teach the value of respect for the environment (so maybe Social Studies could be brought in somehow...?).
See you all on Monday!
I compared the jet toy lesson with GEMS “Acid Rain.” All the lessons in the book are about acid rain, and seem to be more focused on scientific aspects rather than mathematics. One specific lesson has students test the pH of rain. Students test the pH of normal distilled water, as well as distilled water that students have blown into with a straw. After testing the pH of normal water, students then test the pH of acidic water. Learning about characteristics of acids and bases would meet the NSE standard of physical science, just as the jet toy lesson did. Math is incorporated into the lesson by having students place numbers on the pH scale, and moving a certain amount of numbers forward, backwards, or equidistantly. This part of the lesson would meet number and operations standard for math.
I liked how the jet toy lesson provided lots of room for student discovery and hands on experimenting. The acid rain lesson, didn’t appear to provide as many opportunities for student breakthroughs and experimenting on their own. Although I liked the jet toy lesson, I also agree with Helena somewhat, that the building the “jet” aspect of the lesson didn’t allow for inquiry.
When I stepped into the TRC the other day it was overflowing with other students. I left and planned on coming back at a later time. When sitting at home last night. googling around, I came upon some AWESOME websites; one of which was a great GEMS website called www.thegateway.org . A lesson that I took from this website was from the GEMS curriculum. It has been created for the 5th and 6th grades. The title of the lesson is “Eratosthenes and Us, It Just Keeps Going, and Going, and Going…”
The GEMS project that I researched was actually a unit that spread over 2 years. It started in 5th grade and strung out through the 6th. This unit integrated science, math, social studies, art, and literature. Compared to the jet toy activity, I felt that the GEMS activity covered a lot more important things. Obviously the Jet Toy activity was an hour, while the unit I looked at was over a span of 2 school years.
What I found was that in the jet toy activity we were told exactly what to do when making our toys. No room for creativity, personalizing our jet toys. I think it would be more inquiry based if we were given the materials, and then sent outside to do it, where there were more room to have a difference in elevation of the string, and be able to make the jet toy in our own way. I think we should let the kids figure out how to move the jet toy. I also think that when it comes to variables such as how many pumps of air, and how much weight, which we could have limited options so that the whole class is some what on the same page. This way it is easier to graph if we were to add graphing into the lesson.
One thing I noticed about the GEMS activity was that it asked open ended questions. Just one of these in was “Are the Sun’s rays really parallel?” Even better………….this question came from a student! This project tied into Egypt, Columbus, and Marco Polo (history/social studies). This project also tied in science and math by collecting and processing data. The students also had to assess fro data quality, communicate their findings with others, and use all data to calculate final calculations. I really likes his activity because it was extremely hands on, with great structure.
I compared the Jet Toy curriculum to the AIMS curriculum in the book "Out of This World Grades 5-9." I like how the table of contents is broken down two ways. The first is a standard numerical table of contents and the other is math skills and science processes.
I found with this set of lessons that there was not any real inquiry. It seemed like the inquiry was asking their own questions, but they wouldn't be testing those questions. The integration of math and science is apparent in every lesson. Each lesson has mathematical computations that go along with what is being taught. For one of the lessons: "Planetary Scavenger Hunt," the students begin by establishing the diameter of earth as 1 unit. They then have to calculate the other planets' relative diameter and find objects that have the same diameter.
The problem that I see with this unit is that Pluto is still included as a planet. All of the student pages have Pluto and some of the directions included comparing pluto to the other planets. With a little work any teacher could recreate the pages without Pluto.
The grade range, 5-9 is shown through the range of difficulty in the math computations and the science concepts.
I am comparing Jet Toy with the Aims Curriculum. Just leafing through the book shows that it could be a very fun resource to have in your classrooms. I happened upon the one called Machine Shop for grades 5-9. I was having difficulty deciding between the ‘catapult’ and the ‘slippery surfaces’ but have decided upon Slippery Surfaces. It compares to the force and motion or ‘friction’ within the lesson. Mathematically, it is the measurement of angles, has averaging, and graphing. Scientifically, it deals with physical science and simple machines. The math/ science process skills are observing, collecting, recording, interpreting data, and drawing conclusions, very much like our Jet Toy experience. It deals with “friction as the force that acts to resist motion” (AIMS) which we discussed with the jet toy as well. Children will compare the differences between sliding friction (pennies) and rolling friction (film canisters). How about film canisters filled with pennies? The activity is in groups of 3-4, over one class period, using protractors for measurement, and vegetable oil for a lubricant. The major concepts are: “Energy is used to accomplish work. Work is done when something is moved. Friction is a force that resists motion. Friction can be reduced” (AIMS). The use of the protractor determines the angle of the surface you are allowing your pennies and canisters to ‘slide’ upon.
I would have preferred that we had been allowed to design and make our own jet-toys. I did not have as many questions or variables about the actual action of the jet-toy, although it was a fun activity. I think kids would be more intrigued by finding out how steep a hill has to be to make their ‘toy’ slip or roll faster. You could even integrate the two lessons together, and use the jet toy (without the balloon), with angled measurements, and determine which surfaces (sandpaper is one), have the least resistance and the most resistance.
After reading everyone’s comments, it sounds like everyone came up with some awesome lesson plans! I am looking forward to being able to leaf through more of these booklets.
I looked a Science unit using the GEM curriculum. The students were investigating the properties of a substance called "Oobleck," which is a goo substance made from household materials. What I liked about the lessons was that the students were using inquiry processs to investigate the properties of the goo. They were given important assignments reguarding the goo. They had to problem solve and brainstorm things about the Oobleck. However I did not think that the book included as many integration ideas as it could have. Math would be the easiest one to include, especially if you had the students assist in making the goo. As I was reading through, I was able to think of many ways to integrate, language arts, math, science, and social studies all together, however I was disappointed in the lack of suggestions for integration in the book. I felt that the Jet Toy activity already combined science and math in an easier way than this particular GEM book. I think the GEM books could be a useful starting place, but would need to be altered to make a really good integrated lesson/unit.
I compared the jet toy curriculum to a lesson in the AIMS curriculum. It is a short lesson designed for fifth graders about classifying leaves into groups according to their properties. It does a great job integrating math and science together. The lesson provides an excellent study guide for the teacher to help the students learn the new vocabulary (simple and compound leaves, pinnate and palmate, etc). The lesson meets the NSE standard of life science and asks students to observe and compare their leaves into properties such as texture, color, shape, number of veins, and number of edges. The students also measure the length and width of their leaves and then graph their data. (Mathematics).
This would be a great lesson to take students on a field trip outside to observe and collect their own leaves and needles. After having them divide their leaves into various properties, it would be important to have them explain why they selected each group by using the vocabulary they have previously acquired.
As I looked through other lessons in the AIMS curriculum, I started to realize how easy the lessons are to understand and how thorough each one gets into a topic or concept. I will definitely be referring back to it as a resource for other math and science lesson plans.
I will compare the Jet toy curriculum to in the AIMS machine shop activities, specifically the "All Wound Up" lesson plan. In this lesson plan, students create a thread-spool tractor with which they will study the role of friction on the length that the spool travels. This is similar to the Jet Toy curriculum in that students study factors that effect distance. It is much more specific in its focus however, only studying the role of friction on distance traveled while the Jet Toy Curriculum studied speed, distance, carry weight, and length of time traveled without specifying that friction was what was at stake. Because the focus in "All Wound Up," is narrower, they are able to study friction in relation to distance of travel in a much more thorough way. The Jet Toy curriculum seemed to leave friction unmentioned though it was a very important factor. This shows that the Jet Toy CUrriculum was less teacher centered and more inquiry based. Both lessons seem to provide allot of teacher centered guidance about how to first design the object and then give kids plenty of materials and time to find out how to solve the problem. The AIMS curriculum simply focuses specificaly on friction. Both lessons focus on finding ways to create "fairness" in the tests by creating control factors. Both lessons require students to observe, record, graph, make hypothesis, apply, and generalize their data, and share their results with others in the classroom while comparing and conrasting results. The friction lesson plan goes into the specifics of what affects friction more than the jet toy curriculum did for any of its factors and is less inquiry based and more teacher centered.
I chose an AIMS book for grades 4-9 titled "Soap Films and Bubbles." The book begins with a chart of math skills and a chart of science skills. Both charts list all the activities in the book and which skills they cover - how handy! You can easily see which lessons are more basic and which really get into math and/or science. I chose one called "Stretching Out" because it covered 5 math and 5 science skills, including predicting, measuring and comparing. The key question is: How far will the soap film between two rings stretch? During the lesson, students discover that there is a mathematical relationship between the size of two equal rings and the distance the soap film will stretch between them. It sounds like fun to me! Kids would have a great time with the bubbles while discovering order and relationships in our natural world.
This particular lesson doesn't give the students much flexibility with variables, but there are others in the book that do. Obviously, the jet toy lesson included some flexibility with variables, though, as many other have said, flexibility with the design of the vehicle would also be fun and educational.
I like how Helena said "the emphasis is on organized play rather than boring math drill and kill." Organized play is more like a real life situation and students will be able to combine what they are learning in math, science and other subjects. Plus, they're interested, which is the first step in getting them to learn!
I recognized another lesson in this book as one I helped students with in one of my kids' 4th grade classrooms a couple years ago. Using toothpicks and small balls of clay, students made different shapes, dunked them into soapy water, then counted the vertices, faces, etc. that were formed by the bubbles. Great geometry info and the kids had a blast!
In general, I think SAE, AIMS and GEMS all have the same goal of making science and math fun, interrelated, and inquiry-based. Depending on which specific lesson you happen to read, different qualities will show up. But taken as a whole, the result is the same.
I checked out a GEMS curriculum to compare to the jet toy activity. The particular GEMS program I looked was "Terrarium Habitats". The program included five activities all leading up to making a terrarium then adding elements to it, like earthworms and isopods.
Kacie stated that it was difficult to find math integrated with the science in her GEMS program. This was also the case with "Terrarium Habitats". It seemed to be more science-centered. The jet toy activity easily integrated math with the graphs and measurement that was required. The jet toy activity was also more integrated in that the math and science was done together and connected. The car had to be altered to do the measurement. The GEMS math activities are separate.
The AIMS activities seem to be more integrated. Janna's AIMS curriculum looks more like the jet toy lesson because the math and science seem more integrated.
I brought home an AIMS notebook called "Floaters and Sinkers" that contained lessons on density and volume. One of the lessons that looked like fun to me is called, "See Level". In this lesson, students measure, multiply and divide decimals, interpret data, and average numbers. Students first calculate the volumes of alcohol, motor oil, vegetable oil, water and salt water. After measuring the different volumes, students are asked to predict which liquids would float on which if they were all poured into the same beaker. Then they test their predictions and a discussion is held about the findings. The teacher talks about the usefulness of density measures of liquids to predict their reaction to another liquid. The teacher tells students that the ratio of the density of a liquid to the density of water is called specific gravity.
I do not think that the lesson that I read about was necessary poor, but I do think that it is slightly inferior to the SAE Jet Toy lesson. I feel that the "See Level" lesson could be more student orientated. I think that at the end of the lesson it would be beneficial if students were allowed to ask other questions involving the different liquids, hypothesize an answer, then test their idea. I also wonder if there could be some way to guide students into creating their own way of testing which liquids float on which instead of just telling them to pour all the liquids in one container.
For this particular blog comment I explored the AIMS curriculum for grades 5 through 9 "Fun with foods". One lesson that stuck out particularly was "Waste Not, Want Not!" The purpose of the activity was for students' to determine the percentage of usable and unusable parts of fruit. The math skills involved are graphing, finding percentages, and averaging, and the science included: recording data, estimating, and measuring.
Students' are asked to estimate the mass of the fruit, and the mass of the unpeeled fruit and the left over peel. They then proceed to skin the fruits to discover if their estimations were correct, then they go on to graph their data.
This would be an enjoyable lesson for my students', and would put concepts such as averaging into a more visual form. As far as comparing AIM to jet toy, I think that the jet toy curriculum gives students' an actual mission or problem they need to come to which AIM doesn't. The jet toy is difficult to squeeze into a small window of time, but I could see AIM as being a good resource for a quick, fun, and beneficial lesson.
Post a Comment