- Can someone out there help me? For entry 3, I had my kids working in

small groups, each group working on a different investigation based on

scientific questions they came up with. Some were doing physics

questions, some life science, and so on. The discussion wasn't that

great because all of the kids had numeric data, the conclusions were

obvious. For the video, I started with a whole-group discussion about

the investigation I did as a model, then I talked to each individual

group about their data. What do you think? - Kristi, where there any specific process skills you were trying to

teach based on their data? I am not quite sure why you feel the

discussion didn't go well if students had numeric data. Numeric data

is quantitative data so this should be okay. This entry looks at how

you help students in there interpretation of data. I guess you may

need to ask yourself the purpose of your activity in terms of what the

students should be learning and experiencing.

--- In EASCI@yahoogroups.com, "Kristi" <bateman_kristi@y...> wrote:

>

> Can someone out there help me? For entry 3, I had my kids working

in

> small groups, each group working on a different investigation based

on

> scientific questions they came up with. Some were doing physics

> questions, some life science, and so on. The discussion wasn't that

> great because all of the kids had numeric data, the conclusions were

> obvious. For the video, I started with a whole-group discussion

about

> the investigation I did as a model, then I talked to each individual

> group about their data. What do you think?

> - Thanks. I didn't feel it went well because the students had

quantitative data that had obvious conclusions. I didn't have to

help them interpret at all. What you see is me asking about their

hypotheses, their procedures, what happened, and what they concluded

based on that. I didn't have to lead them to their conclusions.

That makes me think that I need to redo the entry, though I really

don't have time. My goal for the lesson was to have my students

become more familiar with inquiry, and to basically go through the

entire scientific process from question to conclusion based on a

question that the cooperative groups came up with. I walked them

through each step of the process reinforcing how to write a good

question, a good hypothesis, a procedure that would produce valid

and reliable data, and to come to a conclusion based on that data.

I modeled each step with my own investigation. Our state has

specific standards that the kids are expected to know and follow,

and I modeled the investigation after those specifications. I don't

know. I still think I need to redo the entry. It just doesn't feel

right, you know? Again, thank you for your help.

--- In EASCI@yahoogroups.com, "thescienceteacher"

<sciquest2000@y...> wrote:>

data

> Kristi, where there any specific process skills you were trying to

> teach based on their data? I am not quite sure why you feel the

> discussion didn't go well if students had numeric data. Numeric

> is quantitative data so this should be okay. This entry looks at

how

> you help students in there interpretation of data. I guess you

may

> need to ask yourself the purpose of your activity in terms of what

the

> students should be learning and experiencing.

working

>

> --- In EASCI@yahoogroups.com, "Kristi" <bateman_kristi@y...> wrote:

> >

> > Can someone out there help me? For entry 3, I had my kids

> in

based

> > small groups, each group working on a different investigation

> on

that

> > scientific questions they came up with. Some were doing physics

> > questions, some life science, and so on. The discussion wasn't

> > great because all of the kids had numeric data, the conclusions

were

> > obvious. For the video, I started with a whole-group discussion

individual

> about

> > the investigation I did as a model, then I talked to each

> > group about their data. What do you think?

> >

> - Thanks. I didn't feel it went well because the students had

quantitative data that had obvious conclusions. I didn't have to

help them interpret at all. What you see is me asking about their

hypotheses, their procedures, what happened, and what they concluded

based on that. I didn't have to lead them to their conclusions.

That makes me think that I need to redo the entry, though I really

don't have time. My goal for the lesson was to have my students

become more familiar with inquiry, and to basically go through the

entire scientific process from question to conclusion based on a

question that the cooperative groups came up with. I walked them

through each step of the process reinforcing how to write a good

question, a good hypothesis, a procedure that would produce valid

and reliable data, and to come to a conclusion based on that data.

I modeled each step with my own investigation. Our state has

specific standards that the kids are expected to know and follow,

and I modeled the investigation after those specifications. I don't

know. I still think I need to redo the entry. It just doesn't feel

right, you know? Again, thank you for your help.

--- In EASCI@yahoogroups.com, "thescienceteacher"

<sciquest2000@y...> wrote:>

data

> Kristi, where there any specific process skills you were trying to

> teach based on their data? I am not quite sure why you feel the

> discussion didn't go well if students had numeric data. Numeric

> is quantitative data so this should be okay. This entry looks at

how

> you help students in there interpretation of data. I guess you

may

> need to ask yourself the purpose of your activity in terms of what

the

> students should be learning and experiencing.

working

>

> --- In EASCI@yahoogroups.com, "Kristi" <bateman_kristi@y...> wrote:

> >

> > Can someone out there help me? For entry 3, I had my kids

> in

based

> > small groups, each group working on a different investigation

> on

that

> > scientific questions they came up with. Some were doing physics

> > questions, some life science, and so on. The discussion wasn't

> > great because all of the kids had numeric data, the conclusions

were

> > obvious. For the video, I started with a whole-group discussion

individual

> about

> > the investigation I did as a model, then I talked to each

> > group about their data. What do you think?

> >

> - It almost sounds like you are describing entry 2. However, remember

it is how you get them to analyze data on entry 3. If you believe

that your activity/discussion didn't allow for enough probing

leading to or validating their conclusion based on data, you may

want to re-think the entry--- In EASCI@yahoogroups.com, "Kristi" <bateman_kristi@y...> wrote:

>

> Thanks. I didn't feel it went well because the students had

> quantitative data that had obvious conclusions. I didn't have to

> help them interpret at all. What you see is me asking about their

> hypotheses, their procedures, what happened, and what they

concluded

> based on that. I didn't have to lead them to their conclusions.

> That makes me think that I need to redo the entry, though I really

> don't have time. My goal for the lesson was to have my students

> become more familiar with inquiry, and to basically go through the

> entire scientific process from question to conclusion based on a

> question that the cooperative groups came up with. I walked them

> through each step of the process reinforcing how to write a good

> question, a good hypothesis, a procedure that would produce valid

> and reliable data, and to come to a conclusion based on that

data.

> I modeled each step with my own investigation. Our state has

> specific standards that the kids are expected to know and follow,

> and I modeled the investigation after those specifications. I

don't

> know. I still think I need to redo the entry. It just doesn't

feel

> right, you know? Again, thank you for your help.

>

> --- In EASCI@yahoogroups.com, "thescienceteacher"

> <sciquest2000@y...> wrote:

> >

> > Kristi, where there any specific process skills you were trying

to

> > teach based on their data? I am not quite sure why you feel the

> > discussion didn't go well if students had numeric data. Numeric

> data

> > is quantitative data so this should be okay. This entry looks

at

> how

> > you help students in there interpretation of data. I guess you

> may

> > need to ask yourself the purpose of your activity in terms of

what

> the

> > students should be learning and experiencing.

> >

> > --- In EASCI@yahoogroups.com, "Kristi" <bateman_kristi@y...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Can someone out there help me? For entry 3, I had my kids

> working

> > in

> > > small groups, each group working on a different investigation

> based

> > on

> > > scientific questions they came up with. Some were doing

physics

> > > questions, some life science, and so on. The discussion wasn't

> that

> > > great because all of the kids had numeric data, the

conclusions

> were

> > > obvious. For the video, I started with a whole-group

discussion

> > about

> > > the investigation I did as a model, then I talked to each

> individual

> > > group about their data. What do you think?

> > >

> >

>