1) How did the lessons go?

When teaching these lessons it was under different circumstances than others because I was able to teach the lesson twice in one day. This was valuable because I was able to see what worked and what didn't and make the adjustments for the second time teaching. Overall the lessons went very well with a few minor glitches that were able to be worked out before it was taught a second time.

In the first lesson, Animal Tracking, the children were very interested in using the software and the laptops. The first introduction of the lesson was a little less effective than I would have wanted because the children were not in the classroom initially and were faced away from the center of the room. This situation occurred because the classroom was being used by another group. This management problem was not an issue the second time around because it was taught in the classroom. If however, I was to teach in the lab again, I would introduce the software and lesson before I let them sit at the computers. It was effective to use the worksheet because it kept the children focused on the task and prevented simply just going through the motions. Since the room was small it was easy to keep an eye on the groups and make sure they were on task using proximity as a management technique. The second group of students that participated in the lesson were also eager to use the new technology that was brought from Penn State. I let the students get over this initial excitement by allowing them to ask questions.

The second lesson which dealt with fingerprints was even more effective than the lesson on animal tracking. I believe this level of effectiveness was due to the fact that the children could see how it directly linked to them. This lesson went very well and the students were eager to learn about the shapes and components of prints. The discussion was interesting because I was able to watch the students teaching each other. In the future I do not think that I would change anything.

2) How well did the students do in meeting your objectives?

The students did relatively well in meeting my objectives but had a little difficulty with the final assignment, which also served as the final assessment. Some students did not make the connection between the two lessons and the diversity that is related. Many students however did make the connection and were capable of making abstract connections that were not explicitly told in class. The students that were not able to write down their thoughts were able to express them orally during a follow up discussion. It is for this reason that I believe my objectives were met.

3) What evidence do you have to support your conclusions?

The evidence I have to support my conclusions is the homework sheets on which they discussed the relationship between Animal tracks and fingerprints. The fact that through either discussion or writing they could explain this relationship is my evidence. Additional evidence is seen that the children were able to actively participate in discussion both lessons and were able to use the software related to the animal tracks.

4) What puzzling questions/issues come to mind about this experience?

One puzzling issue that comes to mind about this experience is what to do if the students are unable to make the connection between the two lessons. It turns out that this time they were able to do so but in the future that may not be the case. Would the learning and experience be as valid if they were cued on the ideas and connections they should be making? Another question that has resulted from this experience is what to do about the children who are either uninterested or unable to use the software. It is important to have the students participate but it is also important to provide the students a say in their educational experience. How can you design lesson plans for a unit and still allow the students to make personal explorations and self-guided study?

5) Claims on how children learn science and justified evidence to support claim:

It is clear that children learn best when the learning process is directed and inspired by questions that they have created. Evidence to this was seen after using the science talk lesson to ascertain their level of understanding and also what they wanted to learn. Using this information allowed me to customize the lesson so that it answered some of the questions they were pondering. Designing the lesson in such a way created an atmosphere that was energized and exciting. Learning was not mechanical because it took place in situation that was induced by the students and facilitated by myself, the teacher.

The second claim that I have proven in this experience is that technology can be effective if used in the proper way and not relied on as a teacher itself. The evidence of this is seen in how the lesson was developed and how it could have been. The software that was used in the Animal Track lesson was very broad and needed to have a specific purpose in order to make the program valuable. The adaptations made, such as making a worksheet to accompany the software focused the thought of the students.