In addition to utilizing small group and whole class discussion as a way to introduce a new topic or unit, I have also found small group and whole class discussion as productive ways to summarize and close out a unit. I most recently employed this strategy at the end of the photosynthesis unit. Students had taken notes and independently investigated a multitude of intricate details about photosynthesis, including the definition of wavelength, the relationship between wavelength and energy, reflection versus absorption of light by pigments, and an outline of the steps of the light dependent and light independent (Calvin Cycle) reactions (see Objectives - Photosynthesis Unit Lesson Plan). Halfway through this unit, specifically during the lecture on the light dependent reaction, a bright and usually engaged student approached me after class to ask: “Ms. McCulloch – honestly – WHY do we need to know this?” (March 10th Lesson Plan Reflection).
We had previously, briefly discussed the important though often hidden roles that photosynthesis plays in our everyday lives: the source of all our food (primary and secondary), our primary source of energy (burning firewood, ethanol, coal, oil, and natural gas; knowledge behind solar power), source of many fibers and materials that we use (wood for building, cellulose for paper, cotton for clothing, plastics), production of the oxygen we breath, and consumption of the carbon dioxide we emit. This student’s comment made me realize that we definitely needed to revisit this topic and address it more explicitly. I believe that students can lose interest in the details of science if they are not guided to make a relevant and personal connection to the material.
In my lesson plans, I had pre-planned time for this type of activity: we would close the unit with a quick discussion of the relevance of photosynthesis, a brief review of the carbon cycle, and a calculation of students carbon footprints. Students used a carbon footprint calculator published by the University of California, Berkley. This calculator allows individuals to estimate the tons of CO2 emitted per household, based on zip code. The website also shows you a graph of the general categories that generate most CO2 emissions (travel, home, food, goods, and services). Finally, students have the option to “Take Action” and make specific pledges to reduce their carbon emissions.
Because of technological limitations (a limited number of laptops for use), students had to work in pairs to complete the carbon footprint analysis. The activity actually worked out better this way: this setup forced students to discuss and to come to a compromise on whose carbon footprint they would examine (most students live in different zip codes across the city) and what measures they would jointly agree to take to reduce their carbon footprint. As a form of formative assessment, I collected worksheets and graded them at the end of the period. The class average was a 90%. On the following summative assessment, we included a short answer, free response question that asked students to explain why the world would not exist as it does if photosynthesis did not exist. Most students explained in their answers that trees take in carbon dioxide, which helps reduce green house gases, carbon footprints, and subsequently global warming. This was an objective directly addressed by the collaborative carbon footprint activity. These data support my belief in the use of pair discussion and collaboration in the classroom.
We had previously, briefly discussed the important though often hidden roles that photosynthesis plays in our everyday lives: the source of all our food (primary and secondary), our primary source of energy (burning firewood, ethanol, coal, oil, and natural gas; knowledge behind solar power), source of many fibers and materials that we use (wood for building, cellulose for paper, cotton for clothing, plastics), production of the oxygen we breath, and consumption of the carbon dioxide we emit. This student’s comment made me realize that we definitely needed to revisit this topic and address it more explicitly. I believe that students can lose interest in the details of science if they are not guided to make a relevant and personal connection to the material.
In my lesson plans, I had pre-planned time for this type of activity: we would close the unit with a quick discussion of the relevance of photosynthesis, a brief review of the carbon cycle, and a calculation of students carbon footprints. Students used a carbon footprint calculator published by the University of California, Berkley. This calculator allows individuals to estimate the tons of CO2 emitted per household, based on zip code. The website also shows you a graph of the general categories that generate most CO2 emissions (travel, home, food, goods, and services). Finally, students have the option to “Take Action” and make specific pledges to reduce their carbon emissions.
Because of technological limitations (a limited number of laptops for use), students had to work in pairs to complete the carbon footprint analysis. The activity actually worked out better this way: this setup forced students to discuss and to come to a compromise on whose carbon footprint they would examine (most students live in different zip codes across the city) and what measures they would jointly agree to take to reduce their carbon footprint. As a form of formative assessment, I collected worksheets and graded them at the end of the period. The class average was a 90%. On the following summative assessment, we included a short answer, free response question that asked students to explain why the world would not exist as it does if photosynthesis did not exist. Most students explained in their answers that trees take in carbon dioxide, which helps reduce green house gases, carbon footprints, and subsequently global warming. This was an objective directly addressed by the collaborative carbon footprint activity. These data support my belief in the use of pair discussion and collaboration in the classroom.