jonka Fei Gao 13 vuotta sitten
466
CEP806 Group 1 (Oct 5)
Melanie expresses her gratitude and apologies for not being active due to migraines. She shares her experience with lung cleaning during an internship, noting it was powerful yet messy.
jonka Fei Gao 13 vuotta sitten
466
Lisää tämän kaltaisia
How is everyone doing on their inquiry plan?
First, Melanie, somehow I changed your comment on Inquiry plan from big and red writing (topic) to a normal subtopic. I am sorry. I tried to undo and it wouldn't let me.
But to answer your question, my project is going well. I almost have my draft of the project complete. I will be looking at one class simulation for an introduction to the actual instructional activity. (I got the structural idea from Chuck and his comment to use simulations as an introduction, or foundation builder). My question is, "While I know where to submit it (angel), we are supposed to give feedback to each other; where do we read each other's project information, and where do we discuss it? Do we attach it here for others to read, then comment in this mind map, or will there be a new mind map created for us?" Anybody know? Did I miss the memo?
no worries Jeff! The undo button has been my BFF while getting to know Mindomo! :)
You probably saw the email today. The inquiry project discussion happens through the blogger site. That is probably a good thing or this map could get confusing!
WOW!! you all are amazing! Sorry for not being on here earlier...had a couple migranes this week and couldn't stand to look at the computer. :-( But feeling better now!!
Melanie
I totally hear you on the lung cleaning. I did that during my internship and it was a powerful experience, but messy. Isn't it nice to have free resources at your disposal sometimes? While pig "plucks" aren't more than $4.00 a piece from a butcher, the budget of your school, or lack thereof, of any district at this time is probably a cause for concern. Free stuff rocks:)
Group,
Does anybody teach high school biology where you actually dissect? I would love to know how you incorporate it into your curriculum.
We don't dissect a full animal in fifth grade, but we do dissect a set of pig lungs, which are the same general size of human lungs. It fits into our body systems unit, specifically the lessons that teach the respiratory system. I love it! A couple of interesting things you experience by doing it live:
Students have the opportunity to feel the difference between the smooth esophagus and the rigid trachea.
A small piece of lung is able to be blown up mimicking how it inflates and deflates on its own.
The students put a marble down each of the tubes, the esphoagus and the trachea, and are then able to see that the marble comes out at the other end of the esophagus (where the stomach would be), but that the one in the trachea enters the lungs.
Other pieces of information:
It is messy and the cleaning of the lungs beforehand is not so fun.
I teach in a rural area, which has a meat-packing company nearby. They save the lungs for us so we don't spend any money to purchase them. It would be the part of the pig they throw away normally. Kind of gross....I know.
My students love this dissection! It really helps bring to life the respiratory system.
Our human body kit comes with sheep hearts. However, the kit only has two of them. The students do not get th opportunity to discect their own so we do a group discection. In the past I have also brought in other items (cow joints - neck, leg, knee & marrow bones). The kids love the chance to explore these items.
This year we have also ordered sheep plucks. Again, not enough for individual or group disections but enough to give them a taste of what a disection is like.
Jeff,
I do not teach high school biology; however, I give my 7th grade students the opporutnity to do frog dissections towards the end. This opportunity is provided for two main reasons:
1. It is high interest (which is good for the end of the year)
2. It is in someways a culminating activity for our "human body unit" (so various organs and such are relevant and familiar)
I actually use a "hybrid" model containing simulations and the "real" thing. My main purpose for incorporating the simulation is for a few reasons:
1. It gets kids used to the "guts" and what they are getting into (this is important for squeemish 7th graders).
2. They have actual "practice" making the initial cuts and pinning (saving some instructional time).
3. It provides pictures so that students can "see" what they are going to be looking for...(organs, etc.)
I give students a day in the computer to explore. In addition, I provide links on my website for students to explore further.
Over the past 3 years, I have found that students become much better prepared to do the "real" thing. However, the frog simulations lack the ability to go further. For example, if a student wants to look at the actual eye ball or brain, he or she cannot do that in a simulation. Hands on dissection and instruction allows students (and me) to be naturally curious. Whereas, simulations are much more methodical in nature, not allowing for further exploration (and the possibility of getting squirted when cutting out the eye ball :) )
It is always interesting to see what kids roll up their sleeves and dive into the dissection, while others feel oppressed that their teacher is "forcing" them to do such a gross activity.
The "real" dissection lasts around 2 class periods (45 minutes each). Students are required to list various organs that they see and "group" them according to the different systems.
Jeff,
I noticed your comment was more specific about what you did or did not like about the simulation. What do you think about organizing it like this? Feel free to change it if you have a better idea!
Looks great!
Looks great!
Thanks you Jeff and Jennifer for setting this up!
I was delighted to see that you organized it differently. Thanks for the upgrade! This is perfect...unless anybody else has a better idea?
Chuck, your initial comment on "Cuts and Guts" was a great piece to consider within my schools' curriculum. Providing an engaging simulation would be a very good idea to prepare the students. Showing the the "how to" could have many benefits, one of which is simply taking the emphasis of instruction off of the teacher and making it a true investigation. Although I do not teach biology currently, I will pass along this technique to my coworkers in hopes they might find interst in it. Thanks, Chuck!
Group Discussion: Simulated vs. Actual Frogs
One of the standard activities of high school biology is the frog dissection. This activity has endured for many decades and dissections of this sort are considered to be absolutely central to learning what science is all about. With the advent of computer simulations, teachers now have a choice of doing actual and/or simulated dissections.
In this discussion, you are to consider the pros and cons of simulated frog dissections.
Before starting, you need to try a few simulated frog dissections. Here are three suggestions.
Froguts. Select the frog dissection demonstration and complete it in its entirety (5-10 minutes).
The "Froggy" Project from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab for an example of an actual virtual dissection. Spend time exploring the "Virtual Frog Dissection Kit" as well as some of the other resources and information. (5-10 minutes)
"Net Frog" from the University of Virginia. This is another virtual dissection website. It requires a fast Internet connection because it has audio and video clips. Also, it is a bit more graphic (dissections by their nature are graphic) and you may not want to explore this site while eating lunch. (15 minutes)
After you have explored the virtual learning expeiences, you may enter the discussion. Please focus the discussion on the following question:
What important aspect of a good science education is gained or lost in doing simulated, rather than an actual, frog dissections?
The purpose of this discussion is to get you to consider more carefully the nature of learning experiences. In particular, we say we prefer "hands-on" or "real" experience, but we are too often quite inarticulate about exactly what it is about these kinds of experiences that makes them compelling. What do we mean by "real" or "hands-on" and why are they important to learning. Hopefully, this discussion will encourage you to become more sophisticated in your understanding of this issue.
I couldn't get one of the frog simsto work on my home computer. You definitely need to make sure your computrs can hack it before planning a leson on sims,
On a lighter note, did anyone else find the music kind of eerie?
:)
At first I thought it was neat, then as I got focused it faded out of my head. Then something made me realize it was still going...and to answer your question...it was a little bit eerie. On the positive side though, you do have the option to turn it off!
In general, these simulations are "recipes." They give step by step instructions of what to do. Additionally, they do not allow for deviation and exploration. Whereas, the "real" simulation provides numerous opportunities to dive deeper and it encourages natural curiosity...which the simulations cannot simulate.
I agree. Each of these simulations seemed more of a video thne a real participatory experience, as well.
I agree that the element of curiosity may not be present as fully with a simulation. You are limited to a certain number of tasks, which are basically what the creators of the simulation have decided. There isn't a lot of room to deviate and explore on your own.
I certainly believe that there is a certain "experience" that you get when you pin, scissor, cut, or examine a specimen. When I performed the first simulation, even though I loved everything about it, the manipulation of the tools was very dissappointing. They were clumsy to handle and didn't really give you a "feel", the second site was just passive and the pictures were grainy, and the third was no real "feel" at all. This I believe is an essential experience to science education.
These simulations aren't very exciting- I remember boiology class. The anticipation and highlight for the year was all about cutting up pigs or cats or frogs grasshoppers or whatever. And, no, I am not psychologically sick, I jst thought that part was cool.
Simulations don't let you make mistakes. Kids in the generation (typically) are clickers...meaning, they will click whatever and whenever to get the desired result. Does this really elicit an educational experience?
Absolutely not, I don't believe this is an educative experience, but I also see that as a major problem with ANY simulation. Creating one (simulation) which hits all facets of an educative experience is extremely tricky...as is any "real" experience (aka...non simulation or real life). Not all "real" experiences, although well intended, will hit the mark regarding educative either.
In short, some aspects will be educational, some will not, but we should always try to find the valuable ones at all cost!
the clicking is an aspect most programers have not yet acknowledged. if they did, our simulation would be better. if there is a trick- students will try it. the clicking is not always bad... this is how many studets can teach themselves new skills.
i agree this is not the type of educational experience we are hoping for. the first frog simulation did have a better grasp on the clicking thing... clicking actually helps explore the site.
I think another difficulty about using a simulation for frog dissection is that you aren't allowed to see any variation in the frogs. You are able to see the typical female and male speciman, but not usually any variance in organs, size, reproductive status etc.
Agreed!
For example, it is always excited when a student opens up a frog that has eggs in it! Although some students find this gross, others "wish" that had picked such an interesting speciman.
Are you talking specifically about variation within all three simulations, or just in Site 2? I see what you're saying either way, but I was just wondering because I had never really thought of looking at variation within organs, or across species. For our curriculum when we would do frogs it always confused me because it didn't really seem like the actual dissection served any purpose other than to give them the "dissection experience". Granted I teach on a four block system and this unit was always rushed in the end of the year, but when I saw the virtual dissections, I totally saw how this COULD be taught and then your comment triggered so much more thought about possible connections and questions.
Jennifer Newman
I was talking about all three simulations. Chuck's comment ties into what I was thinking well. Sometimes when dissecting you see "special" circumstances that don't represent the normal speciman, such as a pregnant female, an enlarged organ, a missing organ, etc. It often sparks new conversation about the species and the complexity of life.
You are right - a simulation like this the students are all seeing the same frog. The opportunity for that "teachable moment" is lost. in a real-life situation you have the ability to pull student to one frog or item and discuss.
excellent point - variety is the spice of life! i had not though of this ... without live specimens there is no exposure to the reality of the diversity in a group of living creatures. that is a great lesson for kids and for science.
This side I am going to start a thread that talks about what in particular detracts from a true science education.
Site #2 in particular did not appear engaging whatsoever to me. If, as a teacher I don't find it engaging, how do I expect my students to? I think what I'm trying to say here is that there were not tasks or prompts to keep me engaged. The other sites provided a ton of information to keep me busy but this site I felt lost. Was I just clicking on the organ or the system and looking at MRI like pictures? A quality science simulation to me must have a purpose for my students.
I could not agree more with both Jeff and Jennifer.
In no way is "Froggy" interesting or engaging.
As Jennifer noted, student would have to "unclick" items to make this simulation worth anything.
New thoughts:
1. The frog does not even look real. Students are not dissecting a neon frog. The simulation is far from real.
2.There are no instructions for the actual dissection (cutting and pinning, etc.).
Jennifer Newman-Site 2
I also thought site two was not very effective. One of the major issues I had with it is that the only way you could identify each organ was by unclicking all of the boxes and then just choosing the one you wanted to locate. There is not a way to easily see and identify all of the organs at once. I agree with you Jeff. If it is confusing for me, what chance to my students have of finding it helpful?
Libby k
i agree - the ability to isolate each organ was nice but overall the graphics where so poor- hard to know if students would engage in the site.
Chuck I totally agree with your comment. My fifth graders would not take this site seriously. I also think that the unclicking items to remove them would seriously confuse them.
Also, the simulation doesn't help them learn about the organs. My students would need to have a lot of support in using this simulation
The one thing I wish this tool had was a way to tell what I had read and what I had not. I'm finding it difficult as I look at the map to determine/remember which posts I have seen and which I haven't. Hence, I often end up re-reading a lot of information!
Maybe there is a way to do this and I'm just missing it?
I have run into the same trouble....unfortunately I haven't found a solution either. I don't know if there will be since this is something we all view and all are authors to edit, kind of like Google Docs.
One other pro to using a simulation is that it can be revisited repeatedly. If students need to or want to, the frog can be reexamined as much as desired. This differs from a live dissection in that once it is over the speciman is thrown away and not able to viewed at a later date.
i have used these sims for kids that have been out of school for a long time. they are a good solution but do not totally take the place of the lab. something for them is better than totally missing out.
Simulations can also greatly benefit students who are absent do to long term illnesses or even the flu. Students would still be able to learn along side their classmates and not miss out on the experience because they are home sick.
This is a great point! I often feel bad for those kids who miss the "best" lesssons of the year. A virtual dissection could allow all students to experience it whether they were there on particular day or not.
As a 7th grade teacher (who does frog dissections) I have found that the internet simulations prepare most students for the "guts" that they are going to see. AND, it prepares them for how to cut open the frog and pin it, etc.
I have personally used the 3rd simulation and http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/virtual_labs/BL_16/BL_16.html
I think I have used another, but I don't have that info with me at the moment...
I had never thought about using a simulation as preparation for a real dissection. It would be a great way to get them thinking about the activity that lies ahead and to "practice" some of the cuts and other moves they will need to use.
The ability of control of a simulation is essential. What sites 1 and 3 did was provide the user with multiple controls to manipulate. Sound, dialogue, ability to skip (or go at your own pace) are all aspects for excellent science education experiences. Within one main lesson is the ability to differentiate to almost any ability level.
I really appreciated the dialogue in the two simulations. I have 2 ELL students in my classroom this year and with both #1 & #3 those students would be able to be incredibly successful with simulation.
Simulations definitely provide opportunities for differentiation. I have found them to be a good tool for skimming the surface on the frog dissection and anatomy concepts I desire to get across in my 7th grade classroom.
One other thing I like about the frog simulation is that it is easily accessible. Buying real frogs may be difficult to finance, locate or acquire depending on the situation.
It's nice just to have the experiment at a click of a button. Less prep is good, plus kids could do it at home or on their own if they miss classs, and more...
You also do not have to worry about purchasing or storing disection tools. For some the lack of smell will be a huge plus too!
Not to mention that many are FREE off the internet (not Froguts...)
The nice thing about a simulation is that it is incredibly easy to pull it back up at a later date. Last year I had a student come back the day after a disection and ask something specific about the heart. Because I had disposed of the heart the day before it was difficult to answer her question without it.
Hey Group! I thought since I was the first one in here I would get the talk going. Obviously we are all probably new to Mindomo so if the manner in which I put the first two posts doesn't work, just drag it to make more observable and logical sense.
I thought that both the first and the third site provided some extremely good aspects of how science can be done. Having performed the frog dissections before, I thought both above mentioned sites provided very excellent observations of the frogs. Site #1 was very life like and of course site #3 was actual picture and video. I think the important idea I'm talking about here is the importance for the students to feel as if what they're doing is actually there (meaning that it needs to be believable). Of course students know they aren't actually doing it, scalpel in hand, but there has to be a level of "believability" What does everyone else think?
Students are definitely engaged when they have to "do" something. Although they are not really cutting and removing organs, they get a sense for what is like. Many kids grow up in the virtual reality, so they may see it as an extremely valuable (and beneficial) experience. Even though it may seem artificial to us, I think students reach a level of believability that provides for an effective educational experience.
libby k
i liked the first site too and really only the first site. the more realistic the better for kids. and we are competing with the quality of graphics found in other sim games. i have heard students comment on the quality of graphics as an important factor to how well they see like or use a site.
also, the first site was well stuctured for providing timely and helpful information to support the learning.
I also agree with you that sites 1 and 3 seemed more realistic. Site 3 was especially good for seeing the actual dissection steps take place in order. The 3-D appeal of site 1 brought the frog to life much more. I'm noticing throughout this discussion process and the search for a simulation for my inquiry project that there are effective, high quality simulations, and also confusing, ineffective simulations. It is quite the sorting process!
