You have seen how integrated math and science are with the SAE curriculum (Jet Toy). Now compare with AIMS or GEMS. Please make sure you find mathematics integrated more than just graphing data. That is a fault of some programs "integrating" mathematics. There is so much more than just making a graph. Please research a way to USE math.
When looking in the TRC, please find a different AIMS or GEMS topic than already posted! There are numerous titles from which to choose!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
In the GEMS book of Secret Formulas I discovered a lesson that contains both math and science. The lesson is called Secret Formulas for Cola and it involves students making their own cola drink by adding ingredients like sugar, vanilla, cinnamon, and lime juice to club soda. Students use a data sheet to keep a record of what they use during their experiment. The data sheet contains the label sugar, which has a picture of 5 spoons that the students can circle as they add each spoonful of sugar. The next ingredient on the data sheet is lime juice and beside the label (of lime juice) there are 9 individual droplets the students can circle according to the number of drops they add to their club soda in order to make cola. The same process occurs with vanilla and cinnamon, however the measurement for cinnamon is found by using toothpicks in which the students scoop into the cinnamon and mix into the cola one scoop at a time. After the students have made the best tasting cola they can, generalized arithmetic can be incorporated by using a simple equation to help students develop mathematical skills and discover how it relates to making the best cola drink. Here is the equation students can use by taking information from their collected data of amount of ingredients used:
_____ sugar + _____ lime juice + _____ vanilla + _____ cinnamon =
flavoring for cola recipe
I really like this idea of incorporating math into lessons that are hands on because it’s easier for students to understand it when they have helped create the equation. It also allows students to learn and explore the meaning of an equation as well as working on their addition skills.
The main comparison I noticed between SAE curriculum and GEMS is that they both have hands-on activities which require students to come up with data based on conducting the activity, then collecting data and lastly discovering what worked the best. In the case of Jet Toys students must test the toys by seeing how far the cars go, they collect data based on their testing and discover what works best! The GEMS activity allows students to add ingredients, while keeping a record of what they added (data) then uncover what worked or tasted the best.
I did not like, however, how GEMS did not allow room for inquiry in the beginning of the lesson. This is, however, a fairly easy adaptation. The teacher should first ask students how cola is made, what ingredients it contains, if the ingredients used are all the same amount or different amounts, etc? Then the students should be able to make predictions about how cola is make, what ingredients are used and how much etc. It would be a great idea for the teachers to allow students to taste the cola first than make inquiries. After predictions have been made, the students can then attempt to make cola. The students can then discuss if their predictions were wrong or right and why or why not?
After looking through several lessons in a second grade AIMS book (Seasoning, Math and Science, Fall and Winter) I must say most of their lessons seemed more focused on a math lesson with science integrated versus a science lesson with math integrated into it. I agree with Raenelle when she stated that it seemed like there was not as much scientific inquiry in the beginning of most of these lessons as in the Jet Toy lesson. I found most of the lessons in my book dealt with recording data, observations, and other tools a student would use in the “inquiry” process, as opposed to coming up with testable questions and then ways to test them as might be a focus in a science lesson. I can only assume this is because it was a younger age group, so they are more focused on learning the skills they will need in future math/science lessons.
One of the activities I found was called “Creature Feature.” In this lesson the students estimate how much they think certain vegetables/fruit (celery slices, orange, cucumbers, raisins, ect…) will weigh, and then they weigh them using scales. After they have estimated/weighed the various food items they create a “creature” using the food and estimate how much they think their creature will weigh. After they are all done, as a class, they discuss what items they thought would weigh the most, least, and if any of the weights surprised them. I like how the lesson uses the creature activity to tie up what they just learned about all the weights of the different food items.
In this lesson the students are working on weighing, estimating, and predicting for their math skills, and as an extension the teacher could have the students place their “creatures” in order starting with the least/greatest weight. As for the science processes of this lesson it focuses on recording the data, weighing, observing, prediction, and estimating. This lesson could also be included as part of a larger unit if they were working with plant life in science at the same time.
The SAE activity did have a more inquiry based lesson, but it could have been because the Jet Toy lesson was for somewhat older students. I would be interested to find out if all of the SAE lessons are more focused on science skills instead of the math skills, therefore more focused on students creating testable questions/ experiments? Or if it was just because it was an older age group so all of the lessons are less “teacher directed” and more targeted towards student discovery? Or if the Jet Toy lesson just happened to be a little more science content focused but they also offer math content focused lessons?
I found a GEMS kindergarten lesson plan on getting to know ladybugs, that incorporates both math and science concepts. In this lesson the children observe posters of ladybugs and live ladybugs kept in the class to learn about their bodies and behavior. As children explore the posters and observe the ladybugs they learn the basic anatomy of a ladybug while practicing counting skills. They count out the six legs, two antennae, and two sets of wings. The children also go on a ladybug hunt outside, exploring the habitats of live ladybugs. The students practice releasing the ladybugs, and engage in dramatic play to learn about ladybugs defense mechanisms. The children also engage in Math by exploring symmetry. The children are introduced to symmetry by observing the symmetry of their bodies. The class then looks at posters of ladybugs with no spots and explores the symmetry of ladybugs. Then the students make ladybug drawings where they have to give their ladybugs symmetrical spots. Next the children make paper ladybugs. In this activity the children again are using math by working on their counting skills, as well as engaging in science by showing their understanding of the body structure of a ladybug. The students have to make six legs, two antennae, and two sets of wings, and then correctly assemble the pieces of the ladybugs body.
I liked the ideas behind both the SAE activity that we did, and the GEMS activity that I explored. I liked they way that both lessons incorporated hands on activities that were mostly student centered. The GEMS activity I explored had a little more teacher guidance than the SAE activity, but I think that was because it was geared for younger students who need a little more structure. I also liked the way both activities gave students the opportunity to truly explore both the math and science concepts, in other ways than teacher dictation. I think it is very beneficial that these activities engaged the students in learning math and science by connecting these subjects to real life experiences and explorations. I do agree with Raenelle and Julia when they said the GEMS activity had less inquiry involved than the SAE. I do think it would be pretty easy to add in more inquiry for the students before beginning the activities. In my case because of the grade level there needed to be a little more teacher guidance, however the students could definitely still engage in more inquiry based activities. The teacher could ask the students questions such as: Where do you think ladybugs live? How many legs does a ladybug have? Etc. The students could also explore symmetry a little more on there own before, the teacher gave them the guided activities. There are many ways a teacher could add a little more inquiry to this lesson, but overall it seemed to be an engaging hands on way to learn math and science concepts.
In the AIMS binder of Seasoning Math & Science (Spring and Summer), which is categorized for the 2nd grade level, there are a variety of lessons that include both math and science concepts. The lesson titled "A Sure Weigh" is an activity relating to water displacement. This activity includes weighing different objects by placing them in a pitcher of water, not weighing them on a scale. Students record the data on a table, and then find the differences between measurements. Graphing is also a part of the lesson.
Science processes included in this lesson include observation, data recording, and making comparisons. Math skills included: estimating/predicting, counting, and measuring.
After reviewing the lessons in the AIMS book I came to realize how much science and math can be seen in any one lesson. There are some great ideas that could be very beneficial for both students and teachers. The lessons are very hands on and activity based which I believe make learning all the more interesting, and fun!
When comparing AIMS to SAE it seems that SAE is much more inquiry based as some have mentioned. I think they are both great resources for teachers to turn to when they need some hands on lessons. It appears that AIMS is more focused towards math skills, and SAE is focused towards more science. They are both resources I can see myself using out in the field.
I used the AIMS book called Off the Wall Science. In this book it was hard to find lesson plans that integrated math and science. One lesson plan that I found though is called The Melting Ice Cube. This lesson starts out having students estimate the amount of time that it will take the ice cube to melt when placed in a saucer. They then must record the starting time of when the cube was placed into the saucer, and set it where it can be observed. Once the cube has melted, students will calculate the amount of time it took for the cube to melt. After this they will graph the estimated times. And finally they will determine the average time estimate for the class followed by a discussion of what has occurred.
The science processes involved include observing, comparing and contrasting, collecting and recording data, & interpreting data. Math was integrated into this lesson by calculating the amount of time it took for the cube to melt, graphing the students estimated times, and calculating the averages of the students estimated times.
Both the SAE and the AIMS books appear to have lessons that are hands on based. I think a big difference though is where SAE seemed to be more inquiry based, the AIMS lesson typically have teachers telling students what to do. The AIMS book also appears to have more time for discussion than did the lessons from SAE. Overall, I enjoyed looking through the AIMS book and it seems like a really good resource that I am glad I was exposed to.
I checked out a couple of books and one of the better ones I found was an AIMS binder titled “Fall Into Math and Science”. This binder had dozens of lessons based on math and science for kindergarten and first grade. One lesson within the binder is called “Fall Leafs Me Happy”. This lesson is based on an activity where students explore the many facets of leaves and asks a key question: What can we find out about these leaves? As the lesson that takes about 45 minutes to complete. It has students collect leaves and tape them on to a poster board, creating an interesting display. Students then are able to look at all the leaves through their individual magnifying glasses and discuss the things that they see such as veins, colors etc. Next the students measure the leaves, width and height wise. Students then share their shortest leaf and their tallest leaf, along with their widest and thinnest leafs with the class. The last activity with in this lesson has the students find their favorite leaf and draw what it looks like through their magnifying glass.
The science skills with in this lesson consist of many, including; interpreting data, measuring length, observing, patterns, and recording data. On the science side of things the main skills and processes used are classifying, measuring, gathering, applying, and interpreting data. These lessons really showed how much math and science overlap and how easy it is to incorporate both into one lesson, even when you might not first realize it. A majority of these lessons were really hands on and seemed like great activities that children would enjoy.
The main lesson I chose seemed to be fairly balanced between math and science skills, though there were some that tended to lean towards Math in a strictly graphing context. I do agree with a number of students on the fact that SAE is more inquiry based where as AIMS tends to be more structurally guided.
Wow! Had the assignment been to find Science and Math lessons integrated using charting and graphing, the AIMS book was chalk full of them. I found it much more difficult to find lessons that used Science with inquiry (as Julia pointed out). At times the lesson seemed science-based, but then there wasn’t any rhyme or reason to having the kids do the lesson to understand science at all. The end results of most of the lessons went in the math direction (estimating, sorting, counting, graphing, etc). As with Jet Toys, we were able to make predictions and see different results based on tube sizing and weight. It made sense why air took longer to travel through the small tube and thus made that car travel farther. I am finding other air blowing activities in the AIMS book that have children blowing objects, but no reasoning behind the process. The main focus behind those lessons were graphing (math). It seemed fun, but not overly educational and definitely not an integrated math and science lesson.
That little mini-rant set aside, I did, however, find a lesson that not only intrigued me, but made me hungry as well. This lesson was titled “Making Ice Cream” and has students do just that. The science behind this lesson deals with changing liquid to solids, freezing point, and why we use salt to make things colder. The math used in the lesson is fractions (how much salt per cream?), measuring volume, and timing (how long does it take to freeze?). Students will make predictions, observe the changes, and learn reasoning behind the changes. I thought that this lesson did a fine job integrating math and science without the main focus being a graph. And although I didn’t find many integrated lessons, the AIMS book (Spring Into Math and Science) gave me some great ideas on things I could expand on.
Post a Comment