Sara Yerger and Ron Capurso
Critique of Paul Wilner and Doug Yocum’s Lesson Plan, Clinic I
Paul and Doug’s lesson plan involved learning about evaporational cooling and phase changes in water through testing and recording data using temperature probes. They began by asking students to make predictions as to what changes will occur to two sensors dipped in warm and room temperature water, respectively, and then exposed to the air. Actual measurements are then taken with two sensors, one covered with a cloth and one without, first using warm water for both sensors and then using room temperature water. Time and temperature are recorded by the students on personal data sheets, where they are also asked to write hypotheses and observations. Based on explanations of what energy, temperature, and evaporation are, students are asked to connect this information with the data collected to explain what occurred.
This lesson definitely involved inquiry as described in the NSES Inquiry book (page 25). The learners collected data and used this direct evidence to correct previous hypotheses and/or formulate new hypotheses. They also used indirect evidence based on past experiences they have had with water temperature being exposed to air temperature (i.e. how they felt after getting out of a pool). They were heavily exposed to the scientific method by forming hypotheses, testing them, and coming up with conclusions based on this evidence. One thing that could have been explained to them is why the trials were arranged the way they were and why certain things were tested and not others.
The students were also constantly exposed to excellent scientific questions. They are asked to explain a lot of difficult concepts (with guidance) involving energy, temperature, and evaporation. Throughout the entire lesson, students were asked for their predictions and were later asked to explain the correct answer. The instructors also encouraged the students to ask questions at any time to ensure the learners’ understanding.
One thing that we did not see in Paul and Doug’s lesson was if learners evaluated their own hypotheses after learning of other and/or correct hypotheses. This could simply be because we did not receive this information from them verbally or written in their self critique, but it is definitely a crucial aspect of the scientific learning process. We know that the learners were asked to explain the lesson back to the instructors, but we are unsure if they could explain why their previous hypotheses were incorrect. If the learners were not able to justify the correct explanations and resolve them with their own explanations, then the correct lesson will probably not stick. However, it is entirely possible that this did occur and that we are simply unaware of it. If it did not occur, however, it is definitely something that should be included towards the end of the lesson plan.
We feel that the lesson could have used some improvement as Paul and Doug suggested in their self critique; however, it was an excellent lesson plan as a whole and appeared to work rather successfully. While they presented a concept that is rather difficult to grasp at the age of the students being taught, they presented the concept in a way that made sense. However, the lesson could have been more engaging. Some students were able to get the hands-on experience by directly using the sensor probes, but the rest of the students just watched and recorded data. While this is not a bad idea, since scientists must learn to record accurate data, some other type of interactive component of the lesson plan probably should have been used. One possible idea would be to have the kids attempt to design the experiment themselves while guided by the instructors.