Posted by
Waski_the_Squirrel on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:40:57 AM
When Grandpa Squirrel took science classes, he most likely used alcohol (or mercury) thermometers, mechanical balances, rulers, stopwatches, and other such equipment. When he did his data analysis, he whipped out his ruler, sheet of graph paper, and pencil. He may have even had one of those rubber adjustable curves (and I've forgotten what they are called).
When the current Squirrel (me) started teaching science, it is likely that Grandpa Squirrel would have felt perfectly comfortable in my classroom. I taught with the same equipment. A year in, I purchased a few tape timers so I could modernize.
Education Week recently took up this topic.
This is not to bash old equipment. I love some of it. I use a lot of it. There are a number of labs in which it is simply easier to use the old equipment. Want to make the point that plants give off carbon dioxide and oxygen? You could use a dissolved oxygen sensor and a dissolved carbon dioxide sensor. I use Bromthymol blue. Carbon dioxide turns it yellow. When carbon dioxide disappears, it turns blue. Easy, and the kids get it. I test for oxygen by collecting bubbles given off by water plants. Then we test it with a glowing splint. My grandfather might recognize these labs, but they're so straightforward that I don't see why not to use them.
However, there are limitations to the old methods. I used to do readings of motion with a tape timer. This was a strip of paper tape that ran under a piece of carbon paper and a hammer that left dots on the paper. By measuring the distance between each pair of dots and knowing the period of the hammer, students could determine velocity, acceleration, and displacement. The limitation was that it took forever. If they recorded bad data, they had to redo the work.
Somehow, except with Physics lovers, the whole point of the exercise was lost in the interim. The point was to learn to read motion graphs, equate them to actual motion, and to equate them to mathematical formulas.
For the last several years, I've been using more modern technology. First I used CBLs. Then I took a step backwards to the original CBL. Now I've leapt forward to the LabQuest. What all of these have in common is that they allow instant data collection and graphing. They quickly curve-fit. Students instantly see how different kinds of motion affect the motion graphs. They also see how formulas are affected. I've found that my current students have a much more intuitive feel for graphs and formulas because they can see the relationship in real time.
For years I did the freshman lab where water (or alcohol) is boiled and the temperature is recorded every 30 seconds. Students recorded the data and graphed it and finally noticed that the graph leveled off. Some would "fake" the data because they thought something was wrong with the thermometer. Others would miss the point entirely because they didn't see how the graph changed as the conditions in the liquid changed.
During my last 2 years teaching freshman science, we used electronic thermometers. Students saw the graphs real-time. Frankly, I had many more who understood the link between phase change and the leveling of temperature. They came to it without my prompting.
All of this is to say that the high school science teacher needs to embrace technology. The old equipment has its place, but there are also many places in which it detracts from the lesson being taught. When we look at more professional laboratories, we see the modern technology in use. Shouldn't students be prepared for that?
What actually is the goal behind using the old equipment? I want kids to be able to read a scale. However, may I ask what purpose is served by using a mechanical balance? Is something taught by that which would be missed if a digital scale were used? (For budgetary reasons, I am still using mechanical balances. Look for that to change over the next few years.) Do students learn something by using an alcohol thermometer rather than a digital thermometer?
I've heard the argument for significant figures and I actually happen to like significant figures. However, they are being displaced in modern science. We are seeing more and more that scientists record margin of error rather than use significant figures.
Reading a scale is a valuable skill. However, my students use rulers and graduated cylinders and will probably continue to do so. I don't see any advantage to the alternatives. For the next few years at least, they will continue to use alcohol thermometers and mechanical balances. They will also continue to use force-meters, even though Vernier has created a digital version. At the moment, I see no advantage to the digital version.
Old skills are useful if they lead to better understanding or can be built upon. Don't throw out fractions. My students still do conversions in Chemistry. If they don't understand fractions, the technique is impossible. Long division is a great skill. When I taught Algebra, we used it with polynomials. However, even the math teacher part of me could care less that you can convert two numbers with logarithms, subtract, and then convert the answer back rather than divide. I would respond, "The calculator is a glorious thing, my friend." Mathematica supplanted most of those marvelous integration techniques (shortly after my foray into Calculus). The slide rule was cool in its day. Now, only nerds like me care about them.
Let's not continue to do things the way we were taught. Embrace the best of the new and keep the best of the old. Forge ahead!