Due to travel for my day job, I am unable to host Primavera Science this week. We'll get the year started next Friday.
For those of you kind enough to be checking out the blog already, your consolation prize is this Zombie Feynman cartoon.
Due to travel for my day job, I am unable to host Primavera Science this week. We'll get the year started next Friday.
For those of you kind enough to be checking out the blog already, your consolation prize is this Zombie Feynman cartoon.
Fizzy stuff in Silver Surfers. Last week we graphed the amount of baking soda versus the amount of vinegar required to exhaust the fizziness. It did make a rather nice straight plot, as it ought. So I figured a counterexample might make the point that the straight line is remarkable - -that you don't always get a straight line. Enter, again, the yeast and peroxide. Since the fizziness is caused by an enzyme, it ought to be able to keep fizzing and fizzing no matter how much peroxide you slosh in there.
I think the experiment came out a little muddy, there were probably some dilution effects that I should have figured out how to work around, and I'm not sure the theoretical underpinnings were understood all that well, but I got a chance to exercise some improved technique involving Classroom Assistants.
Beginner's approach
Set out the three beakers. Weigh different amounts of yeast in them. Weigh the peroxide into them. Wait a minute, let everybody talk about what they see. Weigh more peroxide into them.
Advanced teaching technique
Ask for an assistant to set out the three beakers.
Ask for another assistant to weigh 5g of yeast into the first beaker.
Ask for another assistant to weigh 15g of yeast into the second beaker.
Ask for another assistant to weigh 25g of yeast into the third beaker.
Ask for another assistant to weigh 100g of peroxide into the first beaker.
Ask for another assistant to weigh 100g of peroxide into the second beaker.
Ask for another assistant to weigh 100g of peroxide into the third beaker.
and so forth.
Really, it's not all that different from cooking-with-kids at home. Except that ideally you figure out a way that you need at least 21 different things done that you couldn't possibly do yourself.
Both classes got to sniff some genuine ammonia, as in "Titan, a moon of Saturn, may have an ocean of liquid ammonia under its outer crust".
Sniffing is a definite winner. I wonder whether it's possible to think of something different to bring in for sniffing every single week all year.
Planets v2.0 - - long-time readers may remember the Lead Balloon of a demonstration over a year ago, where I brought in materials for scale models of the sun and planets. To an adult, the physical visualization and the counter-intuitiveness of the size ratios are astonishing. The class gave it the grand ho-hum.
A week ago, I asked the K class "Is there anything anybody would specifically like to request as a demo or activity?" and somebody piped up and asked, "how about a scale model of the solar system?". AHA! Now is my chance to replay the solar system (v2.0) under Cognitively Optimal Circumstances!
The show was greeted with - - well, I think they liked it pretty well, and it certainly kept focus, but I can't honestly finish that sentence with "odes and paeans of delight". And it still feels like there's something a little too abstract about "this corn grain is the earth, that basketball is the sun" - - something that the 6 yr old just can't get completely into. Still, when it's the child's request that brought the thing into class in the first place, he's willing to work the old gray matter pretty hard, and the kids sitting around him are hooked in too. I bet if the same model pops up in a couple years they'll be, as it were, primed up to "totally get it" in seconds.
Plus I managed to require about 15 assistants in setting out the model planets.
The K bunch have certainly developed the capacity to follow a long conversational thread. I come in and, as they say, release a conversational hare, and they're off like a pack of bloodhounds. I like to start the class with one news tidbit each week just to emphasize that there is always new material which won't be in your textbook or prepared curriculum. Lately there have been several news items about astronomy. Cassini sends back information suggestiong that one of Saturn's moons has rings of its own, and another one may have an ocean of liquid water (or ammonia perhaps) underneath its frozen methane outer shell. The Spitzer space telescope (yes, Spitzer, not Hubble - - did you know that there are four space telescopes?) detects a nearby star with dust clouds that appear to be in the pre-planetary stage, like our own solar system about 7 billion years back. And in the K class the hands sprout up like bamboo (on my mind because of the bamboo at Norwood Park, also called Dog Park, where they did a major thinning recently and now new shoots of bamboo are growing at about four feet per week), and the conversation takes off like, well, a rocket. I still bring in something intriguing to demonstrate each week, and reserve some time for The Question Box. They are enthusiastic about the demonstrations. This week it was Things that Do and Do Not Fizz with Baking Soda ( vinegar, alcohol, water, lemon juice). And if we don't get to the Question Box, woe betide us! Because those questions are important and the writers will insist and persist until they get their air time.
But our biggest problem is always that we run out of time in the midst of whatever it is, because everybody has something to add, or some point they want clarified, or some extension they are puzzled by. Are you wondering whether your child is participating adequately? The answer is Yes.
Also due here is a shout-out to the classroom guides who provide just the right quiet corrections to keep an animated fifteen-person conversation from turning into a chaotic hubbub.
Over in SilverSurfers, I am following a textbook suggestion that the older group, developmentally speaking, starts to appreciate more leadership rather than unstructured topic selection; and also appreciates topics that continue and grow over time. So, we started with Things that Do and Do Not fizz with Baking Soda, but then (thanks to A.T. for the suggestion) segued into How Much Vinegar does it take to "use up" a certain amount of baking soda. Last week we collected data to answer the question, and this week we all made graphs. I don't think they've graphed experimental data before, and you could hear the electrical crackling in the room as twenty trillion neurons said "whooooaaah.. this is something new, and I get it".
I'm also trying to have us learn a couple new bone names each week. We hang velcro-tagged labels (in Montessori lingo, Nomenclature Cards) on the classroom skeleton. The children are then free to examine these tags, and remove them and reapply them, during the school week.
The What Kids Do textbook also says this is an age where the sense of fairness and justice is developing and is a key interest. That sounds nice and sweet, right? We develop a sense of justice. How lovely. What the textbook author (who is at home giggling as his readers get out into the classroom and discover the subtle understatement) omitted was that this really means a prolonged hurricane season of melodramatic and tragic storms at every microscopic suggestion of unequal treatment. Who got to sit next to The Science Guy today? Why didn't I get to? Who got to help hand out the graph paper? Does everybody get a turn at opening the Question Box? When is my turn? He sniffed the vinegar twice! and so on.
It's been a year and a half since the introduction of the Question Box, and new folks have arrived here and there, so I worry that not all you parents know about The Question Box. In each classroom I have placed a Science Question Box (hand made and finished in clear coat to bring out the natural wood grain, in proper Montessori style). The students are to stuff it with any and all questions that occur to them. On Wednesdays I open it and try to answer the questions.
The original plan was to try to answer them as I pull them out, a big flying game of high-risk Stump the Chump. This year I tried a variation on the protocol, where I read all the new questions out so each child could know that his question had been acknowledged; then I picked one or three to answer this week or to follow up on later.
I don't like how the variation has worked. I think they first thrill to hear their very own question, then they are let down when they do not get air time right away. Or, worse, they are slighted when I read five fascinating questions and then choose only one to actually pursue.
I have noticed the older group has been providing questions at a much lower rate than both (a) the younger group, (b) last year's performance by the older group. Just in time I come to a paragraph in my How To Be A Montessori Elementary Teacher book that informs me of a tendency observed in all children as they enter the Second Plane (roughly age 6-12), a lowered desire to dive into new subject matter or to inquire madly in all directions. As a consolation prize, they develop more interest in a prolonged, deeper inquiry. Their Science Specialist would be well advised to surf on this developmental change.
I imagine you've already heard: our school now boasts a fine 4-foot tall skeleton model. It inhabits the Silver Surfer classroom. Although the K group got a good look at it as well, it was really bought in response to questions from SSurfers, and with plans in mind to develop both science and art lessons for this older group.
The K class had asked about trilobytes - - very convenient as I have a lovely trilobite fossil at home (technically, I borrow the trilobyte fossil that belongs to my daughter). The question had been How Much Does a Trilobyte Fossil Weigh (that group has been asking about two things all year: 1. How much does x weigh, 2. What does the inside of x look like). So we weighed it (1706g). I was about to remark that trilobytes came in many sizes, when a teeny voice piped up "trilobytes come in many sizes". So I agreed, and was about to remark as a general interest item that trilobytes were the first animals to have eyes, when the same teeny voice piped up "trilobytes were the first animals to have eyes".
This week began a new classroom feature, Science News Story of the Week. Every week I receive my Science magazine from the AAAS, a somewhat frustrating process because it usually has about a month's worth of good reading, so that amounts to about 52 months' worth of reading material per year. Anyway, my challenge to myself is to find at least one article each week that can be explained to persons under 9 years old. For the K class, who have been asking about black holes all year, the winner was an article about a gigantic pair of black holes orbiting each other at a distance of 6 billion light years from earth. This where a different teeny voice started piping up from another part of the classroom. Apparently these kids have been reading Science magazine ahead of me or something. He already knew that there was an orbiting pair of black holes, and he even knew that the orbit was expected to collapse in a fabulous explosion in a few thousand years. Apparently the orbital instability is caused by a distortion of space time due to the extreme gravitational force. I'm not clear on the math here, and I probably should have pressed the student for more details ...
Science news of the week for SilverSurfers was about a new approach to selective breeding of corn. It seems that the gene segment that encodes for high vitamin A content has been identified, so now we can go ahead and grow super-nutritious corn -- not by GMO methods, which have their problems, but by good old fashioned selective breeding. But the selection process can be sped up by simply testing the DNA of all your plants rather than waiting for harvest and trying to assay the vitamin A content itself. I don't think the whole story went over completely, but I am pretty sure everybody got the concept of selective breeding and its effect on agriculture.
One voice piped up from the back,
"There must be hundreds of them!"
A simple comment, but beautiful for its depth of insight. He realized that the several dozen cells piped onto the TV screen via digicam represented one pencil-point-sized view on a much bigger slide, and the slide was made from one half-drop of solution taken from a beaker with a whole 250ml. Hundreds – probably millions of cells were in that beaker.
He realized that, not only were we looking at things on a scale of teeniness that was outside everything his senses had shown him so far, but also that the teeniness would require numbers that he didn't otherwise need in daily reality. You might pick a dozen flowers, or see a hundred pigeons, or pass a thousand cars on a long day's drive, but those cozy familiar numbers, the ones whose magnitude we easily intuit, just don't do the job when it comes to a question about the yeast beaker.
In SilverSurfers I pulled one of those "I have never tried this before and maybe it will work" stunts, and got lucky. Again I put the yeast cells under the compound microscope; then I added a half drop of peroxide over at the edge of the cover slip, just to see if maybe we could see the cell's-eye view of last week's fizzy demo.
Here is the video. It speaks for itself.
Last week in the waiting room at dance school I had a conversation with a non-Primavera parent.
She is a home-schooler. She claimed to have borrowed ideas on science teaching from the Waldorf curriculum. (Not having read extensively on Waldorf, I don't know how accurately she represents their methods). She said she was intentionally postponing science curriculum until around 9 years old. She continued with an example: if your child sees a shooting star, and asks about it, then your accurate answer might "deaden" the subject by closing it off. And science as a whole was omitted in order to allow the child a few years of thinking about the universe in magical or imaginary ways.
She and a third parent chatted on about how they might avoid "deadening," yet still play out the shooting star question with a "what do YOU think" sort of approach. While I thought this had, as they say in those disastrous job reviews where you can kiss your raise goodbye, room for improvement (see end note), my mind was busy racing off on two tracks: on the one hand, trying to find the gentlest non-confrontational way to steer her to do better, and on the other hand trying to gauge how deeply I disagreed with her.
Forty-eight hours have passed, allowing me to conclude that I disagree fundamentally and viscerally. Let me count the ways:
1. An honest answer is not deadening
The real answer to what is in a shooting star is fascinating in all its details. It raises dozens of additional questions. It opens doors to understanding the universe in ways that never come up in daily life. A chunk of rock travels 100 million light years in total darkness! I never knew anything was so big! Or so many things lie hidden in the sky! It burns up? I never knew rock could burn! I never knew that air resistance, which I feel as gentle breeze, could grow so fierce!
2. There's plenty of wonder to go around
Go ahead and answer your child's question. Even if you satisfy her on the subject of shooting stars, I absolutely, positively, unconditionally guarantee she will be able to find more questions. She will not run out of wonder. Wonder does not have a Peak Oil moment. The supply of questions, and the supply of genuine mysteries to be asked about, will not diminish. As one of my professors cheerfully quipped, when an algorithm seemed to depend on finding and consuming ever huger numbers, "Don't worry. There are plenty more numbers."
Worse: if you dodge or refuse to answer about the shooting star, you are trying to create a sense of wonder by deliberately withholding information – like OPEC trying to increase oil prices by cutting off supply. Now you have created a type of wonder which is of limited supply, a sort of counterfeit wonder which runs out as soon as your control over the market weakens. A poor trade indeed, discarding the infinite for the artificially finite!
3. You are starving your child
Here at Primavera, the Question Box quietly invites the five- to seven-year-olds to ask questions. They respond with a never-ending river of questions. They want to know about plants, bugs, evolution, disease, death, stars, snakes, rocks, metals, fire, molecules, planets, electricity, machines, and rockets . . . and that's only in the first five minutes. They have a huge appetite for knowledge. Omit science from the curriculum, and you starve that appetite. A child grows complete and healthy on a balanced diet whose Food Groups include art, language, writing, social interaction, real world knowledge, story telling, and physical activity. Starve the mind of an entire food group, and expect to harm the growth of the whole.
4. Magical thinking is a gigantic failure
Some abilities come to us naturally. The ability to eat, and enjoy food; the ability to walk and run: we acquire these just by growing in a normal environment. The infant's drive for language acquisition seems to be hard-wired, as does the parents' complementary skill of language teaching.
Other abilities do not come naturally. For example, humans do not seem to have a built-in genetic tendency to read and write. Reading and writing are acquired because adults insist on their acquisition. We deliberately construct the rules, conditions, and actions that support reading and writing.
Scientific thinking is another ability which, uncultivated, can utterly fail to grow. Thousands of years' experience shows that people are quite able to get through life believing the earth is flat, stars are friendly spirits, diseases are caused by vapors, and so on; and they will fail to acquire – indeed, violently reject -- information that is acquired by other means, as witness Galileo's unpleasant experiences with the Inquisition.
Magical thinking, by contrast, seems to occur naturally. When you watch the football game, and clench your fists to give the quarterback extra strength for that critical throw, you are doing magical thinking! It's harmless in sporting events, and may serve nicely as a sort of social bonding technique ("we're all pulling together hoping Johnny passes his exam"). It has real uses, in storytelling, in facing and reconciling one's emotional states. But as a real world problem-solving technique, magical thinking fails over and over. It doesn't build better mousetraps, win or prevent wars, or cure disease (despite numerous attempts, the bubonic plague was never cured by murdering one's local population of Jews). And yet we see magical thinking all around us. My neighbor feels that global warming is probably just part of a natural cycle. Why does he think so? He just sort of feels it must be right. Worse yet, he votes based on his magical conclusions.
Children need to learn a method of thinking with inquiry, observation, and logic. Otherwise they risk growing into handicapped adults who support nutty political schemes, fall for Ponzi scams, buy products that fail to solve problems that didn't exist in the first place, and generally bring danger to themselves and others.
5. There's plenty of imagining to do
A passage from one of Maria Montessori's books explains the importance of imagining in the curriculum. She does not mean a day-dreamy sort of cotton candy and butterflies imagining. I have an uncle in America, she suggests. I have never seen either America or this uncle, but I use the facility of imagination to bring them both into my mind, and to build knowledge around these facts that I cannot observe directly. Imagination, combined with discernible rules about how the universe works, gives us the power to understand the world broadly and deeply: the Keys to the Universe.
Imagining, like wonder, does not have to be parcelled out, and does not have to be enhanced by deliberate ignorance. We do not need to imagine that maybe the shooting star is a sparkling fairy. We can imagine many real things about the shooting star, and we can extend our imagination with more questions – especially if we are confident our teachers will support us with all the knowledge we ask for.
- - - - - -
Endnote: "what do YOU think the shooting star is". This is an unfair response to the child. You are taunting her by refusing to divulge information. She does not know the answer, and she does not have a plausible way of guessing or inferring the answer. Your refusal to answer is like bringing dinner to table and then forcing the hungry child to wait, not allowed to eat until you finish your weird quiz game. Worse: by demanding an answer from her, you've suddenly put her under uncomfortable pressure -- even guaranteed her failure, because of course she has no way to provide the right answer.
We in Science Specialist class often respond to a question with "what do YOU think", but only in circumstances where the knowledge generally available, plus application of creative reasoning, might yield an answer: as in, "why do YOU think the dolphin needs to swim extremely fast?".
As to that demo - - would you say
(a) Wow! I like totally understand electricity now
(b) I guess there's sort of a connection. Thanks for trying.
(c) Can we play marbles now?
What does the inside of a tree trunk look like
What does the inside of _____ look like?
I dunno. Let's go find out!
Well that's pretty interesting, but now there's more I don't know
Things are what they are