diving into stem with oceanic research group secondary ... 7... · diving into stem with oceanic...

Diving into STEM with Oceanic Research GroupSecondary Unit: Teaching STEM with Sharks

Sharkwreck Mystery: Teacher Activity ResourcesConcepts: Scientific Inquiry, Hypothesis, Theory, Study designGrade Level: 9 Estimated Time: Afterschool: 20 hours Classroom: 9 hoursOverview: Thirty miles off the coast of North Carolina there is a shipwreck on the bottom and swarming around the wreck are dozens of Sand Tiger sharks. They look menacing, but they seem to be very docile. What are they all doing there, in one spot? That’s what Jonathan wants to find out. Biologists think they are coming to mate, as evidenced by the shark teeth they find scattered on the wreck. But while observing the sharks, Jonathan can’t see them doing much of anything except swimming around. He and his crew try various ways to learn more about why these Sand Tiger sharks congregate at this wreck. What do they learn by diving with and recording these sharks both during the day and at night?Resources: Jonathan Bird’s Blue World - Webisode 7 - http://www.blueworldtv.com/webisodes/watch/a-sharkwreck-mystery

Secondary Unit Lesson 3- Sharkwreck Mystery: Teacher Resources - Learn more at www.BlueWorldTV.com!

IntroductionPeople are able to study land animals such as bears, lions or birds by sitting for many hours and observing them. In order to not affect the natural behavior of the animals, this observation usually occurs from a distance or by people camouflaging themselves in the surrounding environment. Studying behavior of animals underwater is much more challenging due to the limitations of time, underwater visibility, location and difficulty blending in with the environment. Consequently, long hours of observational research is not possible for underwater animals which means there are many unanswered questions about underwater animal behavior.

It has been known for years that Sand Tiger sharks gather in certain locations at certain times of the year but the exact reason for this is not known. This lesson highlights the progressive attempts and challenges of learning what the Sand Tiger sharks are doing on this North Carolina shipwreck. Results are reviewed and hypotheses revised while considering other ways to research the question. Considerations for study design such as open, blind and double blind are also included in this lesson.

Objectives• Introduce viewers to the Sand Tiger shark, and its specialized teeth designed for catching fish.

• Teach how a hypothesis can be tested by experimentation.

• Demonstrate just how little we know about some species and how hard it is to learn new things about wildlife.

• Review different types of scientific study design

NGSS and Common Core StandardsNext Generation Science Standards

Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity

Common Core StandardsReading Standards 6-12Speaking and Listening 6-12Writing Standards 6-12


Going Further: ActivitiesActivity #1 - Amazon Flies

Overview: This short activity quickly engages the participants in the process of science. They develop multiple hypotheses to explain a set of observations and figure out how to test these hypotheses.Lesson Concepts: Scientists pose multiple testable hypotheses to explain a set of observations.Materials: noneAdvance Preparation: noneTime: 10–15 minutesGrouping: Appropriate for large group discussionTeacher Background:Scientists seldom follow a rigid scientific method. They do, however, ask questions based upon a set of observations. They then pose multiple hypotheses to answer that question. Each of these hypotheses are then tested and either retained or eliminated based upon the results of that test. Procedure: Relate the following story. (Only the names of the individual and the institution have been changed. The story is true.)

Filbert Abercrombie was, and perhaps still is, a biologist from Oxford. His research was on the distribution of flora and fauna within the Amazon River Basin. The part that he loved most about his work was that he needed to spend months each year exploring and mapping some of the most remote parts of the Basin, following some of the smallest of tributaries. The remoteness of the area and the exploration really appealed to him, satisfying his sense of adventure and curiosity and at the same time giving him a certain sense of peace. There was only one thing that drove him up the wall...the masses of tiny flies that would forever pester him, getting into his eyes, nose and mouth. It drove him crazy!

One day, Filbert was at his work and suddenly noticed that he was no longer swatting away at the pesky little flies. There were no flies around! He was, of course, delighted, but he also wondered why. He was really curious. So he sat down and looked around, looked at his notes, and tried to think of all the possible explanations for the lack of flies in this area.

So let’s see what you come up with...

Have the students offer up possible hypotheses for why the flies were absent. Continue until you have a list of at least 10 or so.

Great! Let’s take a look at ...(select one of the hypotheses)... what could Filbert do to test this hypothesis?

Following a discussion about their ideas, simply move on! They will want to know what the answer is. It is rather fun to make them wait until much later—even until the end of the day.

Answer: At that particular site, the water level had risen so that plants that were normally above the water line were then submerged. The submerged leaves secreted a chemical into the water, which acted as a natural pesticide!

Acknowledgement: Author: Judy Scotchmoor http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/lessons/amazonfly.html


Going Further: Activites (continued)Activity #2 - Researching Discoveries

Select one of the studies below and research how the discovery was made:Identify the research question, type of study, key observations, hypotheses, experiment and conclusions.What bias or observer effect may have been present?

1. Insulin - Frederick Bunting2. Nylon - Wallace Carothers3. DNA - James Watson and Francis Crick4. Other galaxies - Edwin Hubble5. Polio Vaccine - Jonas Salk

Activity #3 - Taste Tests: Open, Blinded and Double-BlindedConduct taste tests for bottled water vs tap water (or Coke vs. Pepsi) in three ways - open, blinded and double-blinded and see if the results are the same or different.

Materials: 3 different bottled waters (or soda) and a glass of tap water; cups, a means to cover up the bottle

Procedure:1. Have a group be able to see the labels on what they are drinking and rate each type of water from 1 to 10

with 10 being the best tasting.2. Have the tasters not know what kind of water they are drinking but have the researcher know which sample

is what kind of water3. Have neither the tasters nor the researchers know the kind of water being tasted.

Taste Tests:1) Bottled Water vs tap water:

http://www.thedailymeal.com/what-you-didnt-know-about-your-bottled-waterhttp://www.thedailymeal.com/what-you-didnt-know-about-your-bottled-water-slideshow

2) Soda: Coke vs. Pepsi http://jrscience.wcp.miamioh.edu/nsfall01/FinalArticles/Final-IsitWorthitBrandsan.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/teach/ensi/ensi_checks_lab.html Authors/Adaptors: Adapted by Steve Randak; version by Judy Loundagin

Overview:Each team has an envelope containing a series of bank checks. A few are removed at a time, and the team attempts each time to construct a plausible scenario that involves those checks. With each subsequent removal of checks, appropriate revision of the scenario is done. Final scenarios are compared by the class. Class discussion is designed to show how human values and biases influence observation and interpretation, even in science. This is a lesson that models the “historical” sciences, e.g., geology, paleontology, astronomy, forensic science, and evolutionary studies (where one uses clues — rather than experimentation — to infer past events). This lesson may be used in your Nature of Science unit, preferably in the first 2-3 weeks or later in the year as a little “something different” break, to reinforce those concepts.

Lesson 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.• Human values deeply influence science • 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.

Materials:• A series of 16 checks in an envelope (1 envelope per team):

• There are two sets of checks (which you can use in alternate periods). Note that set “A” has check numbers, providing an extra clue that might make it easier to figure out a sequence of events.

• Set A: 16 checks (with numbers), 4 checks per page on 4 pages• Set B: 16 checks (without numbers), 4 checks per page on 4 pages

• Student Worksheet (one for each student)• Student Worksheet Key (for teacher use)

Advance Preparation:• Make one copy of each of the 4 Checks Pages in Set “A” for each team. (If you want to make it more

challenging use the Set B checks without numbers instead of Set A.)• Cut apart the checks in a set of 4 Pages, and insert all 16 checks (random assortment) into a team envelope.

Repeat this to make one envelope of checks for each team in the class. All envelopes of checks can be used again in each period. If you want to alternate sets of checks for each period, repeat the above for the other set (Set “B”) of checks.

• Make enough copies of the Worksheet so there is one for each student.

Time: 1-2 class periodsSecondary Unit Lesson 3- Sharkwreck Mystery: Teacher Resources -

Learn more at www.BlueWorldTV.com!

Activity#4: The Checks Lab - Deductive Science

Procedure:1. Arrange students into groups (four works well). Each group is given an envelope containing checks written by fictitious characters in a fictitious scenario (don’t tell them this!). You can say something like “These envelopes contain a bunch of checks found in different drawers in the home of a family that no longer lives there.” Tell students not to peek in the envelopes!2. Read the following introduction to your students:

This activity is a simulation designed to help you experience how science works when figuring out past events, and that it is built on evidence that can be observed or inferred from clues in the natural world. However, this evidence can sometimes be confusing, seemingly conflicting, and apparently random. Furthermore, each new bit of evidence often creates more questions than it answers. The Checks Lab shows how 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.

No scientist works alone. This activity will demonstrate the value of collaboration within each group and with other groups in order to arrive at a reasonable explanation of the problem. There is at least one other characteristic of science that is not usually appreciated or realized by most people. See if you can figure it out while doing this lesson.

3. Then have each team draw four checks from the envelope at random. Using the information on the checks, each group attempts to determine the circumstances that surrounded the writing of the checks. In other words, each group tries to come up with a storyline for the character(s) based on the information on the checks. This leads them to formulate their tentative explanation #1 for the checks — or a “storyline” that fits the checks. [This could be called a “hypothesis” if you like, but it’s recommended to not do this — yet. Some students may recognize the “tentative explanation” as a hypothesis, but it’s best to have them experience this explanation-building process before attaching a fancy word to it (hypothesizing). You can do this during class discussion (see their worksheets). Allow students to record this original tentative explanation.4. Then, instruct them to reach in the envelope without looking, and randomly select four more checks from the envelope. If you like, you can contrive a situation in which students are detectives using some checks found as partial evidence in some sort of crime; after a period of time, some more checks are found, perhaps in another drawer of the evacuated house. Observe the groups for insights as to how the new information affects their previous storyline. Once again, allow each group to work until it appears that most have exhausted their individual lines of thought, and have recorded their tentative explanation #2.5. Now each team should draw only two more checks and proceed as before, recording tentative explanation #3. After a few minutes, suggest that the different groups collaborate by sharing their information. The groups should realize that others may have one or two different pieces of data. Unused checks must stay in envelopes (in the real world, we never have all of the desired information).6. At the conclusion of this “share time”, ask each group to select its strongest hypothesis (likeliest storyline) and record this as their finaltentativeexplanation.7. After giving the groups time to formulate and record their final explanation, ask a group spokesperson to stand and report the group-selected explanation (storyline) to the class, so that all may hear different conclusions from similar data.8. Lead a follow-up discussion on the value of collaboration,tentativenessofscientificexplanations,theeffectsoflimiteddata,andtheinfluenceofpersonalbiasesandexperiencesontheirideasandultimateselectionofamostlikelyexplanation. Even if scientists have a strong explanation of a natural phenomenon, they can never be absolutely sure that new data won’t eventually appear and show the explanation to be wrong. You might also use this experience as a springboard to a closer look at some of the criteria scientists use to determine which storyline (explanation) is “best” (probably closest to reality).9. Also, again point out that this Checks Lab experience simulates the scientific process of investigating an unwitnessed historical event (or even pre-historical event), and tests hypotheses by looking for clues that could confirm or deny a given hypothesis, not by doing experiments.10. Allow students to answer the Discussion Questions, individually, or (probably better) collaboratively within each team. If time runs out, they can finish this as homework (if they have individual worksheets). If they do this, give all teams a chance to share answers and come up with preferred “Team” answers.11. When students have answered all (or most) of the questions, engage the class in sharing and discussing their answers, guiding their understanding toward the concepts generally indicated in Student Worksheet Key.


Activity: The Checks Lab (continued) - Deductive Science

Teacher Background:This exercise is designed to help students understand the idea that science is built on evidence that can be observed or deduced from the natural world. We gather evidence through the use of our senses. However, the evidence can be confusing, seemingly conflicting, and apparently random. Data is not always consistent nor even readable. Furthermore, all of the evidence may not be available. This is why scientific explanations are “tentative” explanations of natural phenomena.

In this simulation, there are several independent types of clues that may be used to develop an explanation (a hypothesis). This illustrates the concept that scientists use a variety of criteria to compare explanations and select the better ones. Scientists may even have to connect seemingly unrelated lines of evidence, always looking for patterns, to form tentative hypotheses. Evidence in science, as in this simulation, is not of equal value. Scientists must learn to discern between useful and useless data. In this simulation, the value of each check is affected by the order in which it is selected, and by the relative importance placed upon it by the various group members. Individuals with strongly held opinions or with strong personalities may have a major effect on their group’s opinions. This aspect of the activity illustrates that human values, biases and experiences can deeply influence science.

This lab is open-ended. There is not enough information to say with certainty what the storyline is and each new check may create more questions than answers. This is a dynamic of both this lab and science. In addition, the participants should recognize that not everyone reaches the same conclusion when observing the same data, and why that is. Furthermore, this simulation encourages participants to equate the solving of a mystery with the search for scientific explanations. At the same time, this simulation reinforces the collaborative nature of science: scientists often work together to solve problems.

Finally, students may not notice this, but this “investigation” is not an experiment! Students seldom learn that great science can be done on events of the past, unobserved by anybody, and unrepeatable. Therefore, they must search for clues to explain a series of past events, looking for patterns and connections. This type of science is usually referred to as “historical science.”

Additional Teaching Notes:You could ask students to point out the elements of “The Scientific Method” which they are using in their development of a probable scenario suggested by the checks, however they are not actually doing lab experiments to test their hypotheses (the usual criterion most people assume to be science). Instead, they are actually testing their ideas by looking for patterns of information in the checks in hand which are consistent with those ideas, thereby building a plausible, hopefully probable, story line which fits all the evidence. This is how forensic scientists (CSI, etc.) try to figure out how a crime was perpetrated, and who did it, something nobody living observed (or would confess to), can’t really be repeated, and must be based solely on evidence found. This is also how scientists do much of their work in paleontology, astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biology, the “historical” sciences! Point out that there really is no one scientific method, but rather different methods, all designed to figure out the most accurate explanation that fits all the evidence. As for which scenario is “correct” or “best”, emphasize that in science, we never know. Scientists use discriminating criteria to reach the “best” explanation for the moment, based on (and consistent with) existing data (evidence).

The Checks Lab is also an excellent way for students to experience the very real fact that even in science, cultural biases and experiences do influence interpretations (and even perceptions). Be sure to point out the social aspect of their efforts, just as we find in real science. Scientists typically collaborate, share ideas through conventions, meetings, and publications, much as your students were doing as they discussed the checks and recorded preliminary scenarios. These are all the things most people fail to recognize as typical of science, so anytime you can do something to point them out (or even better, get them to point out), you will have clearly improved their science literacy.

Finally, something else seldom explained for science students is that science is not democratic, and it’s not supposed to be fair. Whatever reality is, it is, and in science, we are merely trying to find out what that reality is, consistent with observations, and trying to understand it. Our conclusions are not based on feelings, popularity, or logic, or certainly not what is currently politically correct! That’s one reason why debate or voting are never appropriate means for getting answers in science.

Acknowledgements:From the Checks Lab on the ENSI website.

Adapted from a Social Studies activity by Steve Randak.



Name_________________________________ Period____ Date__________

THE CHECKS LAB WORKSHEET 1. Tentative Explanation #1: 2. Tentative Explanation #2: 3. Tentative Explanation #3: 4. Final Tentative Explanation: Questions for Discussion:

1. What bits of information on the checks were valuable to your group in formulating a tentative explanation?

2. What information was useless?

3. List any misleading information that was presented.

4. Why do we say that an explanation in science is "tentative?

5. What ‘s another word for a “tentative explanation?” _____________________________________

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 its being tentative and scientists collaborating, what other characteristic of science not often realized did you experience?


Name_________________________________ Period____ Date__________

THE CHECKS LAB WORKSHEET KEY

1. Tentative Explanation #1: [Any reasonable explanation that involves all selected checks is OK]

2. Tentative Explanation # 2:

3. Tentative Explanation # 3:

4. Final Tentative Explanation: [Don’t tell students this, but there is no actual story here; all checks are fictitious. Therefore, the class can decide which team’s explanation seems like the most likely one – for now. That’s what scientists do!]

Questions for Discussion:1. What bits of information on the checks were valuable to your group in formulating a tentative explanation? Students should notice and consider such things as dates (for sequence and season), whose checks they were, who signed each check, who the checks were made out to, the amount, and reason (if given).

2. What information was useless?

3. List any misleading information that was presented.

4. Why do we say that an explanation in science is "tentative?" [Something like:] Because new data/information may not fit previous explanation, so new one must be developed.

5. What ‘s another word for a “tentative explanation?” [Depending on age or experience, some students should recognize “Hypothesis” as the word for this.]

6. Could your hypothesis become a theory? If so, how? [Not all students may know this yet] Usually not directly. For a hypothesis to contribute to a theory, it must be tested (challenged) many times and be combined with other observations and tested hypotheses.

7. What’s the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? [Not all students may know this yet] A hypothesis is a very tentative explanation, relatively untested, for something puzzling. A theory is a much better established explanation, based on tested hypotheses, and more observations. A theory is still “tentative,” still subject to change, but less likely than a hypothesis. It’s more durable.

8. Is your final hypothesis "correct"? Explain. [Not all students may know this yet] Hypotheses are never correct, but some are better than others. The best hypotheses must account for all known data, be logical, and be testable.

9. How could you “test” your hypothesis – i.e., what could you do to show your hypothesis is not correct? Look for more clues to see if they fit the current hypothesis, or not.

10. Besides science being tentative and scientists collaborating, what other characteristic of science not often realized did you experience? [Not all students may know this yet] Students may notice that bias, opinions and personal experiences do influence hypothesis formation. They may also recognize that hypotheses must be tested (challenged) to arrive at best hypothesis. They may also notice that this was not experimental. Scientists often have to use clues to figure out what happened in the past, and gather more clues to test those ideas.


diving into stem with oceanic research group secondary ... 7... · diving into stem with oceanic...

Documents