Assignment 3 - Lesson Plan for Science 8 Students: An Inquiry-Based lab on Density

Chris Quarrie

University of British Columbia

Masters in Educational Technology

ETEC530-66B Constructivism Strategies for e-Learning

University of British Columbia
Instructor: Diane Janes
LESSON PLAN FOR SCIENCE 8 STUDENTS: AN INQUIRY-BASED LAB ON DENSITY 2

Part A
In my Statement on Education, I tackle the concept that some constructivists put forward, that
there is no independent reality outside of the one that is constructed in a learners mind. An
article in Jessica Bouchards Caf by Matthews (2002) points out that, relativistic belief systems
are being given a higher standing in science teaching, and an increased import in science
classrooms in general, under the overarching theory of constructivism. As a science teacher, I
believe that there is indeed a reality outside of our own conscious construction of it, and it is up
to those who practice the scientific method to try to determine what that reality looks like. I
think the fact that, standards for practice [in US science education] on the constructivist
assumption that learners do not passively absorb knowledge but rather construct it from their
own experience (Matthews, 2002) has led to the increasing influence of providing external
viewpoints and alternative points of view. I do believe it is important for students to
understand how Western science is performed and the truth of how and where it originated,
and that there are often cultural or individual biases involved in even the most rigorous
experiments. However, I also want my students to understand that culture, belief, bias, and
other alternative viewpoints that drift away from peer-reviewed, controlled experiments that
utilize the scientific method and dispense with bias or subjectivity as much as possible, need to
be given a primary focus in the science classroom. The introduction of traditional Aboriginal
knowledge and wisdom, which is very culturally biased, and introduces to the supernatural in a
science classroom, is both irresponsible and dangerous. I would say the same thing to a class
that wanted to teach creationism (or intelligent design, or whatever it is called these days) in a
lesson on evolution. It is misleading and misrepresentative of the mountains of evidence that
points to our current scientific understanding of the natural world.
My lesson therefore, will focus on constructivist principles that bear the scientific method in
mind. I want my Grade 8 science students to work together to design and investigate a concept
using an inquiry-based technique. My lesson is student-centred, as I want to avoid the top-
down delivery of content that pervaded much of 20th century learning, particularly in science.
Von Glaserfeld believed that in a constructivist classroom, students must incorporate, or
construct, new information in ways that make sense with what they already know. This is what
von Glaserfeld means when he says that you would have to know what you ...know before you
...know it. You can only understand new information in the context of your own personal
appreciation and understanding, based on previous experience that makes sense to you as an
individual. My inquiry-based lab is designed to promote student understanding of the topic by
having them write the procedure for the lab themselves. This opportunity will allow them to
invest themselves in the methods and practice of doing science while also demonstrating their
knowledge of a topic in science (in this case, the topic is density).

LESSON PLAN FOR SCIENCE 8 STUDENTS: AN INQUIRY-BASED LAB ON DENSITY 3

In Module A we delved into the concept of truth versus belief. We were asked: Is someone
who understands the underlying reasons and evidence for atomic theory and the density of
substances more instrumentally valuable than someone who just accepts the scientific
evidence and trusts the (overwhelming) consensus? Not really. They might not be able to
argue to a non-believer as well as someone who can back up their claims, but Pritchard (2010)
points out that, True beliefs are better than false beliefs (i.e. are of more instrumental value),
but not as good as knowledge. The problem with true beliefs - it is unstable. You are more
likely to reach your goals if you have knowledge to back up your beliefs, which is why it is
better that students see for themselves, using the tools available, how a principle can be turned
from textbook knowledge, to constructed understanding and belief in their minds.
Pritchard points out the dilemma of circular arguments between the teacher, student and
textbook. In Module A, I argued that the idea that a belief cant be supported by information in
a textbook because it leads to a circular argument between the student, teacher, and textbook
is frankly absurd. I would argue with this: facts appear in a textbook due to rigorous application
of the scientific method and mountains of evidence from multiple sources, fields, and repeated
trials. It is not just written into a textbook, so the argument that this is somehow circular is
misleading. And while students do often learn scientific information from a textbook, it is far
better that they attempt to apply their knowledge and build on it in an inquiry-based activity,
which is what an activity like mine will attempt to do.
In Module B we looked more closely at constructivism, and Fosnot describes what a
constructivist classroom should look like. This section was the greatest influence on my
proposed lesson. Fosnot says, Learning is not the result of development; learning is
development. It requires invention and self-organization on the part of the learner. Thus,
teachers need to allow learners to raise their own questions, generate their own hypotheses
and models as possibilities, test them out for viability, and defend and discuss them in
communities of discourse and practice. Top-down, teacher-centred rote-style learning often
leads to incorrect ways of learning - it takes more effort to create lessons that effectively
transform into student-centred constructivist activities, but students must build knowledge
themselves, reflect on it, and use it, to really understand a concept or principle, particularly in
the often abstract intangible world of scientific concepts like atomic theory. So (2002) adds,
Learning involves the active construction of meaning by the student and is not something that
is imparted by the teacher. My lesson plan encourages active involvement and learning on the
part of the student.
We have a global standard by which all scientific experiments must work within in order to be
granted the respect and review of professional scientists. If one works outside of these agreed
frameworks, and does not engage in the scientific method and allow for public review (as well
as conventions like peer-review, repeated trials, etc.) one cannot be said to be performing
science. This can be considered an objectivist viewpoint, but scientists working in this
LESSON PLAN FOR SCIENCE 8 STUDENTS: AN INQUIRY-BASED LAB ON DENSITY 4

framework cant claim, as Nola (1997) says, with absolute certainty that a theory is true and
therefore you must believe it. All theories are fallible. This is what I love about scientific
theories: they work with the observations that we have made up to this point, but that is not to
say that they will always hold true. Science allows for change; it allows for paradigm shift.
Thats what makes it so interesting! In science education, Nola (1997) points out that the core
constructivist concept that knowledge is not transmitted directly from one knower to another
but is actively built up by the learner is supported, but once one gets into the relativistic
domain of thinking that the objects of science are not the phenomena of nature but constructs
that are advanced by the scientific community to interpret nature, one goes down the slippery
slope that the world is not knowable. Nola introduces the idea of Radical Constructivism - But
then you get to the bit about scientific knowledge is both symbolic and socially negotiated i.e.
the objects of science are not the phenomena of nature but constructs that are advanced by
the scientific community to interpret nature (Nola, 1997), you run into trouble. What is
needed in science education is a renewal of epistemology, both in respect of its account of
science itself and in its account of learning and teaching.
I don't believe that this means constructivist theory needs to be disregarded outright; I think
the problems arise from its misapplication. I agree with Fosnots views on a successful science
classroom; it is one in which, students to express feelings related to their work (their
frustrations as well as their interests) ... (Fosnot, 2013). I also believe a successful learning
environment requires the teasing out of misconceptions and misunderstandings. By
encouraging [students to ask questions and express opinions] the teacher can encourage
students to consider the entirety of the learning process. An atmosphere of playfulness also has
an important role in this type of exploration, as it is most likely to encourage this expression of
feelings and can serve as a healthy and helpful release of the frustration inherent in
constructing ones own understanding. (Fosnot, 2013).
Fosnot points out that, Attending to both the science under study and to the individuals
beliefs about the science is an important aspect of constructivist teaching. By encouraging the
teacher can encourage students to consider the entirety of the learning process. An
atmosphere of playfulness also has an important role in this type of exploration, as it is most
likely to encourage this expression of feelings and can serve as a healthy and helpful release of
the frustration inherent in constructing ones own understanding. These trademarks of a
constructivist classroom may well be inconsistent with the view of science as a static body of
facts. However, they are not at all inconsistent with the view of science as an active pursuit. By
actively performing a scientific principle by designing the elements and constraints themselves
(by writing the procedure themselves, for example), my Grade 8 students have an opportunity
to construct knowledge in a way that science itself is being constructed - through a set of rules
called the scientific method. This critical analysis and follow-up reflection will enable a more
active engagement in all areas of the subject for their future learning.
LESSON PLAN FOR SCIENCE 8 STUDENTS: AN INQUIRY-BASED LAB ON DENSITY 5

Part B
My lesson for Science 8 students is a student-led lab on density. It is called Density Mystery.
Students must work in small groups (3-4 students). They first choose an object (solid, liquid, or
granulated solid), then write the procedure for their classmates. They then rotate through the
objects and calculate the density by using the procedures that were written. Please see Table 1
for a description of the activity, as well as key terms and links on the right.

Table 1

Activity Key Terms / Links

Blooms Taxonomy This guide can be used when engaging in Blooms Taxonomy
discussion prior to, during, and after the lesson (particularly the Quick Reference Guide
Sample Question Stems)
Blooms Taxonomy
Prior to the lesson, students should be taught about mass and its SI Have the class play this
unit (kg, g) as well as volume and its units (cm3 or mL). They should Kahoot! to test their
also understand that density is mass/volume. knowledge of density

Testing preconceptions
and misconceptions
Prior to the lesson, Students should watch this BrainPOP: Density BrainPOP video
video about measuring and density, and complete the worksheet
(see link). Answers can be checked as a class (students can mark Worksheet
each other). This can be done in a flipped classroom model, where
students do this work (watching the video & completing the Flipped classroom
worksheet) at home.
Beginning of Lesson (20-30 min) Students are broken into groups, Link to shared Google
and assigned either a solid, liquid, or granulated solid (depending Doc for procedures
on materials available). This is the template that students will use
to write their procedures. It is a shared document for the whole Inquiry-based design,
class. problem-based learing,
PBL, constructivism,
They are presented with a random assortment of solid and liquid presenting student
objects. They must choose one item (like a marble, block of wood, choice, group learning,
eraser, bucket of sand, etc) and write a procedure that students student-centred,
must follow to calculate its density. Writing procedures takes collaboration
around 20-30 minutes, as students must also gather all the
scientific equipment necessary to perform their portion of the lab
(graduated cylinders, scales, overflow cans, etc). Sample set of
Please find a sample set of procedures from an actual Science 8 procedures from an
class (names removed) on the right. actual Science 8 class
(names removed)
LESSON PLAN FOR SCIENCE 8 STUDENTS: AN INQUIRY-BASED LAB ON DENSITY 6

The lab (30-40 min) Students must enter the mass and volume of If laptops are available,
each object, and calculate its density. If they finish quickly, they can they can use this
move on to the report. The data table and graph can be inserted template to enter data
directly into their report.
Post-class follow-up: Report Students must complete a report, and Sample student report
reflect on their experience. They have an opportunity to comment (name removed)
on their classmates experimental designs (what worked, what
didnt work). This allows them to consider exactly how the scientific Scientific method,
method works and by extension, how they learn about the natural reflection,
world using science, scientific equipment, and the scientific method metacognition
Post-class Discussion: After students have submitted their reports, Discussion,
the teacher can lead a discussion on the lab, to extend student collaboration,
reflection on the activity. A description of the objects they chose Socrative method
and their actual densities can be examined, but it is important for
students to understand that while it would be ideal if they truly
discovered the correct density, the importance of this lab was the
process by which they came to their conclusions. Questions might
be: If the density they measured was far different from the true
density, why was it different?

The follow-up discussion is often very engaging, and students have the tools to become part of
the discussion. Was the procedure poorly written? May there have been errors in
measurement? Were the units written correctly?

I highly recommend a lesson of this sort when teaching students a more abstract concept like
density in science. Having a pre-written procedure is too much like completing a recipe, and
students are not necessarily becoming as invested and involved in their learning as they ideally
should be. Inquiry-based, student-centred learning activities like this have solid constructivist
principles at their core and will enable hands-on learning and thought-provoking discussion in
science classrooms.

LESSON PLAN FOR SCIENCE 8 STUDENTS: AN INQUIRY-BASED LAB ON DENSITY 7

References

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. *2nd Ed. Teachers
College Press. Available from: Teachers College Press and Amazon Kindle.

Matthews, M.R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121-134.

Nola, R. (1997). Constructivism in science and science education: A philosophical critique.
Science & Education, 6(1-2), 55-83.

Pritchard, D., Millar, A., and Haddock, A. (2010). The Nature and Value of Knowledge: Three
Investigations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Sesen, B.A., & Tarhan, L. (2013). Inquiry-based laboratory activities in electrochemistry: High
school students achievements and attitudes. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 413-
435.

So, W. M. (2002). Constructivist Teaching in Primary Science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching, 3(1), Article 1.

Swoyer, Chris, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a Constructive Activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49.