ETEAMS Common Planning September 2014

1. ETEAMS Common Planning September 2014 Kim Moore, Program Manager Dr. Tonya Jeffery, Co-PI

2. Today’s Agenda Welcome Overview of Meeting Nature of Science (NOS) Activity Common Planning for STEM Thursday Q&A

3. The Checks Lab Nature of Science (NOS) Activity

5. ENGAGE • Mystery envelope

6. EXPLORE Step 1. • Pull out ONLY 4 checks (do not peek in the envelopes!) • With your team, observe the information on the checks • Discuss with your group what situation the checks imply... • You can disagree, but you must provide evidence • Record the implied scenario as Tentative Explanation #1 Step 2. • Now, pull 4more checks, discuss, and modify the scenario.... record this as Tentative Explanation #2

7. EXPLORE Step 3. • Now, pull 2more checks, discuss and further modify the scenarioscenario/storyline for the characters based on the information on the checks.......record as your Tentative Explanation #3 Step 4. • Meet with other groups to compare data. Step 5. • Collaborate with your team members to formulate your Final Tentative Explanation. Be sure to engage in scientific argumentation, citing evidence.

8. EXPLAIN • Class discussion • Group spokesperson will share the team’s final tentative explanation • Students will share their observations AND • Verbally explain their reasoning WHILE • Citing their observations as evidence for their explanation

9. EXPLAIN • What bits of information on the checks were valuable to your group in formulating a tentative explanation? • What information was useless? • List any misleading information that was presented. • Why do we say that an explanation in science was ‘tentative’? • What’s another word for a “tentative explanation?”

10. EXPLAIN 6. Could your hypothesis become a theory? If so, how? 7. What’s the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? 8. Is your final hypothesis “correct”? Explain. 9. How could you “test” your hypothesis – i.e., what could you do to show your hypothesis is not correct? 10. Besides science being tentative and scientists collaborating, what other characteristic of science not often realized did you experience?

11. Guiding Questions • In what way did you have to make meaning of the data you collected? • How did you use different pieces of evidence to support your conclusions? • Did you and your group members interpret the data the same? • How might your ideas change if you had more time or made new observations?

12. Guiding Questions • In what ways did other group members affect the way you interpreted the data and the conclusions you reached? • What does this imply about the value of collaboration when doing science? • How is scientific argumentation different from typical arguing that goes on between people?

13. ELABORATION How can this experience be applied to new situations? • Crime Scene Investigations • Indirect evidence in developing explanation • Jury/Court Cases • A jury is not 100% sure, but they are sure beyond a reasonable doubt. • Court cases are overturned as new data or new ways to understand the data (DNA testing) emerge.

14. EVALUATION • The final explanation, based on items of evidence and student discussion, would be equivalent to --?-- in the process of science. •  Are all possible explanations equally tentative, or are some more tentative than others? • Why is scientific information tentative? • In the Checks lab, which explanations were most tentative?

15. EVALUATION 5. What do scientific claims require in order to be considered useful in building a plausible storyline or explanation? • What features must the “best explanation” have? • Why is it good (and normal) that scientists disagree and scientifically argue about their proposed explanations?

16. Big Idea • Scientific explanations are only tentative explanations, because new discoveries may show that previous explanations were incorrect. It also shows that some explanations are better than others, because they more logically explain all the data!

17. The Checks Lab • This was a simulation of how science really works. • This simulation encourages students to see how solving a mystery is much like searching for a scientific explanation. • Tentativeness of Science: Designed to help students understand that science is built on evidence that can be observed or deduced from the natural world.

18. The Checks Lab • Nature of Science lesson with a biological relevance: checks written to hospitals, mortuaries, AIDS funds, and drunk driving concerns. • Models the “historical” sciences – geology, paleontology, astronomy, forensic science, and evolutionary studies (where one uses clues-rather than experimentation – to infer past events).

19. Concepts • Scientific knowledge is uncertain, tentative and subject to revision. • Scientific explanations and interpretations can neither be proven nor disproven with certainty. • Scientists use a variety of criteria to compare explanations and select the better ones.

20. Concepts • Human values deeply influence science (its terminology, the questions asked, and the criteria used for choosing among theories). • Scientists can study events of the past for which there are no witnesses available, by proposing plausible explanations, then testing those ideas by looking for clues expected due to a proposed explanation. • Scientific argumentation requires that all claims be supported and justified by material evidence. This is an important part of all good science.

21. Q&A – The Checks Lab

22. Common Planning for STEM Thursday • A. Planning Meeting after school • B. What are your needs? Materials? Resources? • C. Questions and Answers

23. Thank you! 