Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 3, Issue2, Article 3(Dec., 2002)
Russell TYTLER
Using toys and surprise events to teach about air and flight in the primary school
Contents Next

Using toys and surprise events to teach about air and flight in the primary school

Russell TYTLER

Science Education, Deakin University
221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Melbourne, Vic 3125, AUSTRALIA

E-mail: tytler@deakin.edu.au

Contents

Introduction

Most toys by their nature exhibit scientific principles in one form or another. They can be used to enliven and extend the range of science activities in the classroom, or to form the basis of interesting and enjoyable discussions between children and adults in any situation. Through their intrinsic interest and by the associations they generate, toys provide an impetus to investigation and learning through play.


The use of surprise has always been a part of the teaching and learning of science. Some of these activities are "discrepant events" which can be used to excite the curiosity of students, to challenge their ways of looking at the world, and lead on to significant concept development. The activities have also been part of an extended program of research in which I have been interested to chart students' development of science understandings across the primary school. These activities have thus been trialed both in terms of whether they 'work' but also in terms of the ideas and the learning that can come from them. I have tried to reflect that in the commentaries that go with them the ideas that students have, and the difficulties they can encounter in interpreting them. These commentaries are based on many years of experience trying these activities with both students and adults.


The questions represent ways of challenging students' understandings and focussing attention on the important features of the activity. They are not meant to be exhaustive, and it is a common experience that many more questions arise if students are allowed to explore these tricks for themselves. It is certainly intended that the surprise events are tried by the students themselves, rather than being demonstrated, but of course this can at times be impractical. Groups of students, working with these activities, generate many variations in their explorations. The activities can be seen, then, as 'taking off points', rather than as fixed menus.


For the teacher I would advise the following principles in using these activities. Firstly, in almost every case it is best for the student to do the activity themselves, or at least be active participants. In this way a richer exploration can take place. Secondly, while the intention of the activities is to promote conceptual learning, it is not the best strategy to simply tell a puzzled child 'the answer'. It is far better, in terms of learning and also enjoyment, to explore the ideas with the child, supporting their observations, pointing out features, asking questions that focus their attention on relevant features, asking them to think about their insights into other activities. In this way they can enjoy the satisfaction of exploration and intellectual achievement, and engage with their own ideas as they construct new ways of looking at the phenomena. If you simply 'tell':

* you will possibly be giving a restricted interpretation since there is often more than one way of looking at these activities
* the child may not understand the explanation (they may 'nod', but..... ) because it is not in language that is accessible to them
* they will be robbed of the opportunity to make links with their own ideas.
* You will, over time, encourage silence in children if they feel their ideas are not valued, and they learn that the 'answer' will come if they wait.


A strategy that teachers have found very powerful with surprise events particularly is the 'predict-observe-explain' technique. Before doing an activity students are asked to predict what they think will occur, and why. This orients them to thinking about the phenomenon and makes their ideas explicit. They then observe what happens, and following that, particularly if their observation is contrary to their prediction, explain why their ideas were incorrect, and what is actually the explanation.

Copyright (C) 2002 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 3, Issue 2, Article 3 (Dec., 2002). All Rights Reserved.