Kinnaird,+Matthew+Adam+-+Cool+Tools+Review

Matthew Kinnaird Cool Tool Reflection

I attended three different cool tools sessions. First I will talk a little bit about the first two.

The first one I attended was Google Forms. I learned a lot about what Google has to offer when it comes to forms, documents, and spreadsheets during this session. But this session focused mostly on Google forms. This is a web 2.0 tool that allows a facilitator to create questions and post them for a group of students to access and answer. Then you can analyze the answers from the students with quick data analysis. I can see the teacher using this to collect quick assessments from the students. The teacher could use this to decide if the class is ready to move on to the next concept or if they still need more time. I like this tool because it allows you to go paper less and to access this question anywhere.

The second one I attended was on Live Binders. This one seemed a little rushed and we didn't have much time in the class room to analyze this tool in great detail. But, I believe that this is a tool designed to essentially be a notebook for students. It is an online digital location for students to put all of their work from the semester into one spot called their Live Binder. What could this mean for students and school? I believe that this is where school is heading eventually. One day there will no longer be notebooks carted from locker to classroom. Everything is going to be digital and on one computer per students. This site is just the first step to that future, and I have already started looking into using this for my classroom.

The third one I attended was for science teachers and was a cool tools session on Wednesday by Bethany Smith. This session was on a website ran by University of Colorado called [|Phet]. This website is amazing in what you can do to develop an inquiry based learning laboratory. This site has many different gizmos that are digital simulation of scientific concepts taught in class. Also on this site there are a lot of lesson materials and examples of teacher works that can be used and shared by teachers from around the world.

Why do you use digital labs instead of hands on labs? I am a firm believer that the students needs as much hands on lab work as possible, so the student can connect his work to real life and make it relevant. However the digital labs from simulations like Phet allow for great results as well. There is less error in a digital lab, you can repeat the lab many more times without setting up again, you can quickly gather information, and the concepts are clearer without outside error. I think that a healthy unit lesson in a science classroom should include a combination of both digital labs and hand on labs, with a discussion of the difference between the two.

Inquiry based labs bring a lot to the table. We talked about developing an inquiry based lab using Phet. This means the students actually wrote their own lab then had their peers review it, then finally had a different pair of peers to complete the lab. This is huge in understanding. It includes three different view points on three different concepts and that allows for a greater understanding.

Lesson Plan using Phet.

Part 1. Design of a projectile motion experiment
A. What is your hypothesis? (You will test one variable with and without air resistance.) As the angle increases the distance of the cannon increases.

B. Create a step by step experimental protocol to test your hypothesis using the applet at: http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/projectile-motion/projectile-motion_en.html 1. Choose an item to launch (except for user choice) 2. Choose initial speed between 20 and 40 m/s. Do not change your speed once you select it 3. Fire your cannon at the angle indicated and complete the table below by measuring your distance with the on screen tape measure.

Without Air Resistance
 * Angle || Distance ||
 * 0 || 9.9 ||
 * 5 || 14.0 ||
 * 10 || 19.0 ||
 * 15 || 24.2 ||
 * 20 || 29.2 ||
 * 25 || 33.7 ||
 * 30 || 37.3 ||
 * 35 || 40 ||
 * 40 || 41.6 ||
 * 45 || 42.6 ||
 * 50 || 41.2 ||
 * 55 || 39.2 ||
 * 60 || 36 ||
 * 65 || 31.8 ||
 * 70 || 26.7 ||
 * 75 || 20.7 ||
 * 80 || 14.2 ||
 * 85 || 7.2 ||
 * 90 || 0 ||

With Air Resistance 4. Is your hypothesis supported by the data? If not what needs to change about the hypothesis? It is supported up to 45 degrees but beyond this it is incorrect as shot distance begins to decrease with increased angle. - What are the independent vs. the dependent variables in the experiment? Independent variable is the angle of the cannon and the distance is the dependent variable. - How will you test air resistance in the experiment after testing your initial variable? How do the two variables interact? Repeat the experiment including air resistance and compare the results of the two experiments - How many repetitions will you need to carry out within the experiment? Twenty for each experiment - What data will you collect and how will you collect it? Distance of the projectile using the on screen tape measure in both experiments.
 * Angle || Distance ||
 * 0 || 9.9 ||
 * 5 || 14.0 ||
 * 10 || 19 ||
 * 15 || 24.2 ||
 * 20 || 29.2 ||
 * 25 || 33.7 ||
 * 30 || 37.3 ||
 * 35 || 40 ||
 * 40 || 41.6 ||
 * 45 || 42 ||
 * 50 || 41.2 ||
 * 55 || 39.2 ||
 * 60 || 36 ||
 * 65 || 31.8 ||
 * 70 || 26.7 ||
 * 75 || 20.71 ||
 * 80 || 14.2 ||
 * 85 || 7.2 ||
 * 90 || 0 ||
 * In your experimental protocol you may wish to ask yourself the following: **

C. Experimental Protocol:

Part 2. Peer review of experimental protocol.
A. The peer review group should enter their comments regarding the experimental protocol below. They should ask themselves: - Is the hypothesis being careful tested? - Is the protocol easy to follow? Is it sequential? - Can the independent and dependent variables be easily identified and measured?


 * Peer Review: **

We suggest to change the range in hypothesis to match the table to say distance. Protocol was easy to follow and went in order. Independent and dependent variable can be identified.

B. The experimental designers should now alter the experimental protocol based upon peer review.

Part 3. Conduct the experiment.
Now a different group will conduct the actual experiment using: @http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/projectile-motion/projectile-motion_en.html

A. The investigational group should try to follow the protocol as written. Changes can be made if the protocol is not clear. No need to do it twice with air resistance as this only affects the launch with a change of diameter.

B. Data should be entered below. Tables for data can be made using the wiki. Simple graphs can be created in MS Office if time allows. Without Air Resistance
 * Angle || Distance ||
 * 0 || 9.9 ||
 * 5 || 14.0 ||
 * 10 || 19.0 ||
 * 15 || 24.2 ||
 * 20 || 29.2 ||
 * 25 || 33.7 ||
 * 30 || 37.3 ||
 * 35 || 40 ||
 * 40 || 41.6 ||
 * 45 || 42.6 ||
 * 50 || 41.2 ||
 * 55 || 39.2 ||
 * 60 || 36 ||
 * 65 || 31.8 ||
 * 70 || 26.7 ||
 * 75 || 20.7 ||
 * 80 || 14.2 ||
 * 85 || 7.2 ||
 * 90 || 0 ||

Without air resistance



Part 4. Results and Discussion
The investigational group should now write a short paragraph using scientific writing to explain their findings. Findings will be discussed with the group at large.