The M&M activity had a lot going for itself, to say the least.
First my thoughts and reflections on varying components of the activity. I like that the activity had so many learning objectives. I will take away from this activity that lessons or even other activities should not be narrow in focus. When you can create or reflect on an activity and have over ten learning objectives you can explore, elaborate, or review on a lot of content. The nature of the activity presented itself as an inquiry activity with roots in developmental learning theory (starting concrete and applying abstract concepts), social learning theory (collaborative learning, communicating thoughts), constructivist learning theory (active mental engagement and prior knowledge), and behavioral learning theory (walking outside appropriately and highlight consequences for not doing so, when question is posed by teacher or peer that students think about question during wait time). The students were able to make decisions and felt invested in their own learning. Being able to witness the power of being emotionally (being "right" or "wrong"), mentally, and physically invested in an activity or concept helps with active mental engagement, meaning-making, activate prior knowledge, formulate questions, and take ownership of ones thoughts and understandings.
The final two things that really stood out to me and that I will take away from this activity presentation is that "data doesn't tell, data is interpreted" and to ask myself [as a teacher] "what decisions can students make?". To this point, I have always had teachers and peers refer to the data as a way to tell us if something is wrong or right. However, I now completely disagree with both statements. Data can be interpreted in many ways and even represented in many ways (like our different graphs). The difference is not about wrong or right. The point was brought up that indeed there is likely a more effective way to represent or interpret data but all accepted interpretations can be accurate. In science there is not a wrong and right. In science the more appropriate terms are accepted and unaccepted. I found it very interesting to see the number of similarities and differences in which my peers represented the data that was collected! I like the idea of putting a sign somewhere near my desk or on my computer that reminds me constantly to consider "what decisions can students make?". Is this not what student-centered learning is all about?
Questions and concerns that exist after the activity include:
- How does one find a decent stopping point during the activity to pick up with the next class period?
- How does one monitor and encourage all students to participate? With the students discussing in groups and working collaboratively it appears easy for some to "check out".
- When answering questions posed by teacher how does the teacher truly understand if the student knows what they are saying?
- Because there are SO many learning objectives it felt like some concepts or objectives were abandoned.
- Would a teacher consider having the students write about the possible nature of science components of the activity (instead of given them one and asking them to apply or support it with the activity).
Learning Objectives Identified
Nature of Science (NOS)
- Data is interpreted
- Science has biases
- No scientific method
- Consensus Building
- Science is collaborative
- Science is culturally embedded
- Role of evidence in science
- Science uses models
- Make graphs/data analysis
- Explaining (ideas, thoughts, observations)
- Questioning (formulating questions and answering)
- Data collection
- Natural Selection
- Camouflage
- Mutation
- Genetics (review)
