SYLLABUS
for
EDU 312
Title: Science for Children
Professor: Dr. John D. Hunt
Semester: SPRING 2016
Credit Hours: 3 semester hours
Box 4009
Clinton, Mississippi 39058
601-925-3226
1
I. Course Title:
EDU 312 Science for Children (3 semester hours)
II. Prerequisites:
EDU 300, all science core courses, and TEP.
III. Course Description:
This course is designed to provide the teacher candidate with the process and
product of modern elementary science. The guided discovery and inquiry (hands
on, minds on) approaches to teaching are emphasized. This course facilitates the
learning of creative instructional strategies that link teaching, learning and diversity to
prepare ALL students for the realities of the 21st Century (Creativity, Critical Thinking,
Collaboration, and Communication). An effort will be made to teach and re-teach
concepts not mastered and clarify any misconceptions that may occur.
IV. Rationale:
Our nation’s well-being is directly related to the success or failure of its scientific
enterprises. Our schools serve to strengthen the foundations of science. It is in our
schools that we spark the interest of future scientists and develop a scientifically
literate citizenry. The fact that many science career choices are made during early
adolescent years makes it particularly important that K-8 science students be taught
by qualified teachers. Every effort must be made to instill in the teacher candidates
positive attitudes toward science and science teaching.
V. Learning Objectives:
A. Behavioral:
At the end of this course, the teacher candidates should be able to:
1. Relate science instruction (teaching/learning theories) to the cognitive and
affective development of ALL children from different ethnic and cultural
backgrounds. (INTASC - 3), (NBPTS-I, II)
2. Combine guided discovery/inquiry approaches and direct instruction methods to
teaching elementary school science. (INTASC - 1), (NBPTS- VI)
3. Plan and organize standards-based instruction in a 5E lesson format consistent
with the National Science Education Standards, Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS), Common Core State Standards (CCSS), International
Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA) and the Mississippi
Science Framework. (INTASC - 7), (NBPTS- VI)
4. Invent original science teaching activities, e.g.,
2
demonstrations, activators, summarizers, investigations, and projects. (INTASC -
5), (NBPTS- V, VI, VII)
5. Incorporate modern technology, especially the computer, to complete
spreadsheet and graphing assignments. (INTASC - 6), (NBPTS- IV)
6. Think reflectively on teaching practices in the science classroom. (INTASC - 9),
(NBPTS- IX,X)
7. Infuse/integrate assignments/activities across the curriculum (social studies,
mathematics, language arts, children’s literature, music, art, drama, and
technology) in the elementary science classroom. (INTASC - 4), (NBPTS- II, VI)
8. Combine multicultural activities/events with science and integrated them into the
elementary classroom. (INTASC - 2), (NBPTS- II,VI)
9. Use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and assess what
the students have or have not learned. (INTASC - 8), (NBPTS- III, VIII)
10. Answer questions found on ALL student response sheets and check whether the
pre-service teacher understanding the concepts in the lesson. (INTASC – I)
B. Affective:
At the end of this course, the teacher candidates should:
1. Have confidence in preparing relevant science teaching lessons, materials, and
projects.
2. Feel able to do a good job in teaching science using activators, summarizers,
guided discovery/or inquiry approaches, direct, and indirect instructional
strategies.
3. Like to make doing “science” fun!
4. Value science teaching as an instrument for helping all children develop their
cognitive and affective capabilities.
5. Like to do more “hands on, minds on” fun science with their students.
6. Value keeping up-to-date in science teaching methods and curricula.
7. Make teaching science – FUN!!!!
Remember, if you are not having fun teaching, your students are not having
fun learning.
VI. Academic Integrity:
3
The Mississippi College Undergraduate Catalog states that students are expected to
be scrupulously honest. Details on the Colleges’ rules and penalties for cheating and
plagiarism may be found on page 53 in the Undergraduate Catalog. See the
Mississippi College Tomahawk and the Mississippi College Web site (Policy 2.19) for
more information.
VII. Department of Teacher Education and Leadership Mission Statement:
The mission of the Department of Teacher Education and Leadership at Mississippi
College is to provide collaborative, integrated professional educator preparation
which is field-connected and focused on teaching and learning: based on best
practice which is driven and assessed by high national, state and local standards
which will develop reflective practitioners with the appropriate knowledge, dispositions
and skills to lead the 21st Century educational enterprise in America. (Conceptual
Framework page 2 paragraph C.)
VIII. Course Topics:
The major topics to be covered in EDU 312 are:
A. The use of technology, especially the use of EXCEL, to create
spreadsheets and graphs in the science classroom.
B. Constructivism as a teaching philosophy in the science classroom.
C. The role of the teacher candidate as a facilitator of learning in the science/STEM
classroom.
D. The effective use of questions (wait-time) in the science classroom.
E. The effective use of teaching strategies such as activators, summarizers, CDs as
a mentor in direct and indirect instruction in the K-8 classroom.
F. Teaching guided-inquiry activities/projects in the K-8 science classroom.
G. The use of cooperative work groups to enhance student learning and to foster an
appreciation of diversity in the science classroom.
H. Innovative science practices/and or programs for the science classroom.
I. Lesson development, which includes the products/processes of science and
reflective practice, for the science classroom.
J. See how science should be related and used to teach children’s literature,
language arts, social studies, mathematics, health, art, music, P. E., and technology.
K. The effective use of an e-textbook in the elementary school classroom.
L. The teacher candidate’s ability to use Science for Children e-textbook, Project
WILD & Project Learning Tree resources.
4
M. The teacher candidate will be able to develop a 5E (Engage, Explore, Explain,
Elaborate, and Evaluate) lesson plan on a STEM vehicle designed, constructed,
tested, re-design and tested.
N. The teacher candidate will effectively use Edublog to write understanding
summaries.
IX. Instructional Methods:
Instructional methods for EDU 312 will include:
Guided-inquiry activities/projects, class discussion, reflections, library
assignments, group work, technology applications, out-of-class and an in-class
project, and accurate completion of edublogs.
X. Assignments:
A. Summarize science-related magazine/journal articles (2 @ 100 points) 200
Reviews of 2 recent articles (2005 - 2016) about science, children and science, or
science teaching/learning will be required.
Summaries should include complete bibliographic information (following the style in the
textbook), be approximately 200 words in length, and contain a summary and a
personal reaction or reflection to the ideas or methods described in the article and
attach a copy of the article. Please use Arial font # 10 size.
Some suggested topics are listed below. Explore other related topics of interest as well.
Authentic assessment/rubrics in science
*STEM – science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (NGSS)
5 E Learning Cycle Model for teaching science
Project-Based Learning (PBL) Activities in STEM
Project-Based Learning (PBL) STEM Activities for Special Needs Students
Robotics in STEM
Coding in STEM
Collaboration and Communication science experiences for students
Problem solving learning in science
Critical and Creative Thinking learning in science
Web-based learning in science
Science reform projects
Mastery learning
Science and literature learning/teaching connection
Science and mathematics learning/teaching connection
Science and social studies learning/teaching connection
B. Complete particular exercises in the following units: Pressure, Motion/Forces,
Electricity, Sound, and Energy in the electronic textbook Science for Children (2012).
5
Student Response Sheets (SRS)


Complete particular exercises found in Science for Children, 2014 (Pressure,
Motion/Forces, Electricity, Energy, & Sound sections) and SRS.
Use the Student Response Sheets to help you show understanding in your written
response due each week in part #C (Edublogs)
In-Class Project







500
Given a bag of materials, students will work in small group (2 students per group) to
design and develop a vehicle that when released will travel at least one meter.
Vehicle must move but cannot be pushed.
This is a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) project
Record each step with a digital visual
Write a 5E lesson plan (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate)
Use ITEEA, NGSS, Common Core Standards, Mississippi State Science Standards
Grant permission to use this activity in a forthcoming STEM book for students in
grades 1-8.
Science/STEM Fun Day

We are conducting (parents will be teaching) a STEM: Science is Fun Day in the
following schools:Madison Avenue Upper Elementary School – January 22, 2016
Madison Crossing Elementary School – January 29, 2016
Highland Avenue Elementary School – February 5, 2016
Gary Road Intermediate School, Byram – March 24, 2016
Come and join us and see how science can be fun. We start at 8 AM and finish around 1 PM.
C. Edublog
Type in your address bar jhuntmc.edublogs.org or type http://jhuntmc.edublogs.org and
click on GO and you will go directly to our BLOG and summarize topic (paragraph 1). Make
sure your summary (paragraph 1) shows me you understand the content taught in the unit. In
paragraph 2, write what grade level the activity should be taught. Answer your responses for
both paragraphs in complete sentences and make sure you date your responses and sign
your name.
(7 blogs @ 100 points/blog) 700
D. 5 E STEM lesson plan on a Pasta Vehicle…….Team Project
Complete a 5 E STEM lesson plan an example is found at the end of this syllabus
STEM lesson includes a video and or Power Point
400
E. Exam
Take final written examination at the end of the course.
Final test –
(1 test @ 100 points)
100
6
F. Field Experience and Seminar:
Twenty-four hours of seminar and a minimum of sixty hours of block teaching
experience are required for each BLOCK COURSE, EDU 311, 312, 321, and 439.
These hours are mandatory to successfully complete the BLOCK
COURSES; therefore, attendance for both is mandatory. Absences will be
recorded in each block course (EDU 311, 312, 321, and 439) and penalties
will apply as stated in this syllabus.
The seminar consists of meetings to discuss generic topics and trends. Topics
include are: teacher Dispositions & Character Traits; Authentic Assessment; Data
Analysis; Interpretation of Data; Evaluation of Data; Modify Instruction Based on
Analysis of these Data; Classroom Management; and Master Teacher.
The block teaching experience requires teacher candidates to be assigned to an
elementary classroom for a minimum of three hours per day, five days a week for
a three to four week period. While in the classroom, the teacher candidate is
expected to write and teach a minimum of one, 30-minute lesson per day in one
of the content areas. Candidates will be observed for feedback by the classroom
teacher each day and a minimum of 2 times by a university professor. These
visits will be assessed on the following criteria:
o Organization of a professional notebook
o Accuracy of lesson plan
o Appropriate delivery of the lesson
o Professional demeanor
A post conference will be held to discuss criteria compliance.
Expectations: Successful completion of these expectations is mandatory in order to
receive a passing grade in the BLOCK COURSES: EDU 311, EDU 312, EDU321,
and EDU 439.
1. Each Mississippi College student will be assigned to a classroom.
2. Each Mississippi College student will report to the assigned classroom by 7:45 a.m.
and remain with the class until 10:45 a.m. He/she will accompany the class to any
extra activities including lunch as he/she shadows the teacher.
3. Each Mississippi College student will teach a lesson daily (minimum 30-minute) to
be determined by the cooperating teacher. Each student is responsible for planning,
documenting, and implementing each lesson. Lesson plans are required for each
lesson and should be approved by the cooperating teacher prior to the presentation.
4. Each Mississippi College student will maintain a notebook according to the stated
requirements and make it available to university supervisors for daily checks.
5. Each Mississippi College student will attend on the following dates:
March 29 – Report to assigned school & observe from 7:45 – 8:45
Science Final Exam plus another at 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM
March 30 – Report to assigned school & observe from 7:45 – 8:45
Social Studies Final Exam plus another at 9:30 – 11:30 AM
March 31 & April 1, 2016 Full Day Planning (7:45 – 2:30)
7
April 4 – First Lesson (7:45 – 11:45)
April 29 – Last day to Teach
6. Cooperating teachers are requested to provide relative feedback to the
Mississippi College student upon completion of lesson.
7. All cooperating teachers will be asked to sign and date lesson plans as proof of
teaching and to provide comments on the actual lesson plan.
8. The Mississippi College student will sign in and out in a separate notebook
located in the office.
9. The Mississippi College student should follow the classroom discipline plan
accordingly. Corporal punishment may not be administered by the Mississippi
College student.
10. The Mississippi College student should not be left in the classroom without the
cooperating teacher.
11. Any absences by the Mississippi College student must be made up on his/her
own time and arrangements must be approved by the college supervisor and the
cooperating teacher.
12. In case of absence, both the college supervisor and the cooperating teacher
should be notified.
13. Mississippi College Supervisors (Mr. Coco, Dr. Holbert, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Sheppard,
and Dr. Peeples) will observe Mississippi College students weekly. The college
supervisors will complete two formal evaluations of the students during the
semester.
XI. Evaluation:
Teacher candidates will be evaluated on the assignments listed in Section X.
The relative value of each assignment is to the right of each area of assessment.
The following grading scale will be used:
A
B+
B
C+
C
D
F
95% - 100%
90% - 94%
85% - 89%
80% - 84%
77% - 83%
70% - 76%
Below 69%
XII. Additional Course Information:
A. Magazines/Journals in Mississippi College Library related to science and/or
science education:
American Biology Teacher
Educational Leadership
Educational Research Quarterly
Elementary School Journal
Journal of Education
Journal of Educational Psychology
Journal of Educational Research
Journal of Research and Development in Education
Journal of Research in Childhood Education.
8
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Phi Delta Kappan
Review of Educational Research
School Science and Mathematics
Science Activities
Science and Children
Science Education
Scope
Science Teacher
T.H.E. Journal
The Physics Teacher
B. Attendance Policy:
Students are expected to attend class, to complete all assigned work on time,
and to take the written exams in the class period assigned. College policy
regulates class absences and no credit can be given for a course in which a
student misses more than 25% of the class periods. Final grade will be
lowered one letter grade for every 3 unexcused absences. Tardies and early
class departures count toward the number of absences so students should
plan to arrive on time and remain until the end of the class period. If a student
does arrive late, it is his/her responsibility to ensure that the absence is
changed to a tardy by talking with the instructor at the end of class. Two
tardies/early departures will count as one unexcused absence. Except in an
emergency, doctor appointments, etc. should not be scheduled during class
time.
C. Student Assistance
Early Alert System
Mississippi College has adopted the practice of finding students early in the
semester who may be exhibiting behaviors that could ultimately have a
negative impact on their academic progress. These behaviors are often called
“red flag” behaviors and include, but are not limited to, excessive absences,
poor test grades, and lack of class participation or evidence of nonengagement. Identifying these behaviors early gives the instructor the
opportunity to raise the “red flag” on behalf of a particular student so that the
student can take the appropriate action to redirect his/her progress. The
system alerts the student, the student’s advisor, and the Office of Student
Success.
These messages are intended to help a student recognize an area of concern
and to encourage him/her to make some choices to improve the situation.
When a student receives an Early Alert message, the student should quickly
make an appointment to talk with his/her professor about the situation. Also,
students can make full use of the Office of Student Success to set academic
goals and connect to campus resources.
D. Students with Disabilities
9
I
In order for a student to receive disability accommodations under Section 504
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, he or she must schedule an individual
meeting with the Director of Student Counseling Services immediately upon
recognition of their disability (if their disability is known they must come in
before the semester begins or make an appointment immediately upon
receipt of their syllabi for the new semester). The student must bring with them
written documentation from a medical physician and/or licensed clinician that
verifies their disability. If the student has received prior accommodations, they
must bring written documentation of those accommodations (example
Individualized Education Plan from the school system). Documentation must
be current (within 3 years).
The student must meet with SCS face-to face and also attend two (2)
additional follow up meetings (one mid semester before or after midterm
examinations and the last one at the end of the semester). Please note that
the student may also schedule additional meetings as needed for support
through SCS as they work with their professor throughout the semester.
Note: Students must come in each semester to complete their Individualized
Accommodation Plan (example: MC student completes fall semester IAP plan
and even if student is a continuing student for the spring semester they must
come in again to complete their spring semester IAP plan).
Student Counseling Services is located on the 4th floor of Alumni Hall) or they
may be contacted via email at mbryant@mc.edu . You may also reach them
by phone at 601-925-7790. Dr. Morgan Bryant is director of MC Student
Counseling Services.
D. Class Communications:
John D. Hunt
Office: Lowrey Hall, Room 400A (Office hours are posted on door)
Cell Phone: 769-232-1976 – Call anytime!
E-mail: Jhunt@mc.edu
Facebook: john.hunt.56808 and Science Fun Day
Twitter: JhuntDr
Web site: www.sciencefunday.org
YouTube Site MC STEM Institute Media!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt444hXwAeY&feature=em-upload_owner
STEM: Ping-Pong Ball Popper
STEM: Match Rocket Launcher
STEM: Chromatography & Marbling Investigation
STEM: Reusable Sanitary Napkins
STEM: Snack Attack
STEM: Gummy Bear Wave Machine
STEM: Missile Launcher
STEM: Current Generator Tube
STEM: Soda Can Steamboat
STEM: Cola Can Steamboat
STEM: Milk Carton Steamboat
10
XIII. Instructional Materials and Bibliography:
A. Required Textbook:
PEARL LLC electronic textbook, Science for Children 1, Part 1 & Part 2, 2014
(cost $30 for part 1 and part 2…….. make check payable to PEARL LLC)
The Wonders of Science: Book 1 and Book 2, 2010
(cost $25 each…….. make check payable to PEARL LLC)
B. Contemporary Bibliography:
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Becker, B. (1994). Twenty Demonstrations Guaranteed to Knock Your Socks Off!
(Vol.1). Batavia, IL: Flinn Scientific, Inc.
Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple Intelligences and Student
Achievement: Success Stories from Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Carr. J. C., & Harris, D. E. (2001). Succeeding with Standards: Linking Curriculum,
Assessment, and Action Planning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Chase, C. M., & Chase, J. E. (1993). Tips from the Trenches: America’s Best
Teachers Describe Effective Classroom Methods. Lancaster, PA: Technomic
Publishing Co., Inc.
Doran, R., Chan, F., & Tamir, P. (1998). Science Educator’s Guide to
Assessment. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Ehrlich, R. (1997). Why Toast Lands Jelly-Side Down: Zen and the Art of
Physics Demonstrations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Friedl, A. E. (1997). Teaching Science to Children: An Inquiry Approach. St. Louis,
MO: McGraw-Hill.
Gabel, D. L. (Ed.) (1994). Handbook of Research in Science Teaching and Learning.
New York, NY: Macmillan
Ginsberg, M. B., Johnson, J. F., & Moffett, C. A. (1997). Educators Supporting
Educators: A Guide to Organizing School Support Teams. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glatthorn, A. A., (1998). Performance Assessment and Standards-Based
Curricula: The Achievement Cycle. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Harmin, M. (1994). Inspiring Active Learning: A Handbook for Teachers.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11
Hein, G. E., & Price, S. (1994). Active Assessment for Active Science: A Guide for
Elementary School Teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hibbard, M. K., (1995). Performance Assessment in Middle School Science.
Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw - Hill
Holley, D. (1996). Science wise: Discovering Scientific Process through Problem
Solving, Book 1. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Books & Software.
Holley, D. (1996). Science wise: Discovering Scientific Process through Problem
Solving, Book 2. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Books & Software.
Howe, H. (1993). Thinking About Our Kids. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Hurd, P. D. (1997). Inventing Science Education for the New Millennium. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual Tools for Constructing Knowledge. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnsey, R. (1991). Design and Technology through Problem Solving. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming Classroom Grading. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1997). The Learning Cycle: Elementary School
Science and Beyond. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Martin, D. J. (1997). Elementary Science Methods: A Constructivist Approach. New
York, NY: Delmar.
National Science Resources Center (1996). Resources for Teaching Elementary
School Science. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
National Science Resources Center (1996). Science for All Children: A Guide to
Improving Elementary Science Education in Your School District. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution.
Palmer, P. (1998). The Courage to Teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing Project-Based Science: Connecting Learners through
Guided Inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia
University.
Popham, W. J. (1995). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The Truth about Testing: An Educator’s Call to Action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
12
Saphier, J., & Gower, R. (1987). The Skillful Teacher: Building Your Teaching Skills.
Carlisle, MA: Research for Better Teaching, Inc.
Sarquis, M., & Sarquis, J. (1991). Fun with Chemistry: A Guidebook of K-12 Activities
from the Institute for Chemical Education. Vol.1. Institute for Chemical education,
University of Wisconsin.
Sarquis, M., & Sarquis, J. (1993). Fun with Chemistry: A Guidebook of K-12 Activities
from the Institute for Chemical Education. Vol.2. Institute for Chemical education,
University of Wisconsin.
Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sinclair, T. R., & Johnson, M. (1996). Investigating Plants: Hands-On, Low-Cost,
Laboratory Exercises in Plant Science. Reston, VA: National Association of Biology
Teachers.
Silvertsen, M. L. (1993). Transforming Ideas for Teaching and Learning Science.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The Results Field book: Practical Strategies from Dramatically
Improved Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Sornson, R., & Scott, J. (1997). Teaching & Joy. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning and Memory: the Brain in Action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stearns, C. (1999). An Assessment Sample: A Resource for Elementary School
Teachers, Administrators, and Staff Developers. Rahway, NJ: Merck Institute for
Science education.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of
all Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development
Trumball, D. J. (1999). The New Science Teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press, Columbia University.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, R. B. (1997). Twelve Roles of Facilitators for School Change. Arlington
Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
Zorfas, J. M. (1998). Teaching Middle School Students to be Active Researchers.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
B.
Selected Journal Bibliography:
Abdi, S. W. (1997). Motivating students to enjoy questioning. The Science Teacher,
64(6), 10.
13
Abedi, S. W. (1997). Motivating students to enjoy science. Science Teacher, 64(6), 10
Aldridge, B. G. (1994). Anticipating future things: Some thoughts on science education
in 2044, Science and Children, 31(7), 20-21.
Anderson, O. R. (1997). A neurocognitive perspective on current learning theory and
science instructional strategies. Science Education, 81(1), 67-89.
Ates, S. (2005). The effectiveness of learning-cycle method on teaching DC circuits to
prospective female and male science teachers. Research in Science and
Technological Education, 23 (2), 213-227.
Bar, V., Sneider, C. & Martimbeau, N. (1997). Is there gravity in space? Science and
Children, 34(7), 38-43.
Barman, C. N., Cox, M. L., Newhouse, K., & Goldston, M. (2000). Assessing students’
ideas about animals. Science and Children, 37(1), 44-49.
Berlin, D., & White, A. (1994). The Berlin-White Integrated Science and Mathematics
Model. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 2-4.****
Berry, B. (2001). No shortcuts to preparing good teachers. Educational Leadership, 5,
32-36.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment in classroom learning. Assessment in
Education, 98, 7-74.
Blair, J. (2000, 25 October). ETS study links effective teaching methods to test-score
gains. Education Week, 24-25.
Brennon, F. (1997). 5, 4, 3, 2, Thumbs up! Science and Children, 35(2), 14-17.
Burruss, J. D. (1999). Problem-based learning. Science Scope, 22, 6, 46-49.
Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy.
Journal of Research in Science teaching, 38, 715 –729.
Chiappetta, E. (1997). Inquiry-based science: Strategies and techniques for
encouraging inquiry in the classroom. The Science Teacher, 64(7), 22-26.
Clough, M. P. (2000). The nature of science: Understanding how the “game” of
science is played. The Clearing House, 74, 13-17.
Clymer, J. C., & Wiliam, D. (2007). Improving the way we grade science. Educational
Leadership, 64(4), 36-42.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for constructive small
groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
Collins, A. (1997). National science education standards: Looking backward and
forward. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 299-313.
Crawley, F. E., Barufaldi, J. P. & Salyer, B. A. (1994). Coordinated thematic science in
the classroom: A view from pilot teachers. School Science and Mathematics. 94(5),
240-247.
14
Dagler, Z. A. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change?
Science Education, 78(6), 601-604.
Daisey, P., & Shroyer, M. G. (1995). Parents speak up: Examining parent and teacher
roles in elementary science instruction. Science and Children, 33(3), 24-29.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Who will speak for the children? How teachers for
America hurts urban schools and students. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 21-34.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002b). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does
“scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders
can do? Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher
preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of
Teacher Education, 53(4), 286-302.
de Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science
education and in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 657-664.
Dyrli, O., & Kinnaman, D. (1995). Teaching effectively with technology. Technology
and Learning, 15(6), 52-57.
Eckhaus, A., & Wolfe R. (1997). Gathering and interpreting data: An interdisciplinary
approach. Science Scope, 20(1), 44-47.
Edwards, C. (1997). Promoting student inquiry. The Science Teacher, 64(5), 18-22
Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L.C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil
control to preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy. Science Education, 70(1), 63-75.
Feldkamp-Price, B. (1994). A teacher’s guide to choosing the best hands-on activities.
Science and Children, 31(6), 16-19.
Fetterman, D. (2002). Web surveys to digital movies: Technology tools of trade.
Educational Researcher, 31(6), 29-37.
Fiducia, C., & Keroack, E., & Simpson, R. (2007). Mystery rocks and marvelous
machines. Educational Leadership, 64 (4), 52-53.
Fitzsimmons, P. F., & Goldhaber, J. (1997). Siphons, pumps, and missile launchers:
Inquiry at the water tables. Science and Children, 34(4), 16-19.
Foster, G. W., & Heiting, F. (1994). Embedded assessment. Science and Children,
32(2), 30-33.
French, J. (1995). Exploring empowering strategies for teaching elementary scie4nce
methods. Teacher Education and Practice, 11(1), 82-98.
Gallegos, L., Jerezano, M. E., & Flores, F. (1994). Preconceptions and relations used
by children in the construction of food chains. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 31(3), 259-272.
15
Gardner, D. H. (1996). Bringing families and science together. Science and Children,
34(2), 14-16.
Garthwait, A. & Verrill, J. (2003). E-Portfolios: documenting student progress (Digitally
capturing students’ growth throughout the year provides opportunities to assess
learning and a whole lot more.) Science and Children, 40(8), 22-27.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000, summer). Does teacher certification matter?
High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Education
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 129-145.
Gondree, L., & Doran, D. (1998). Teach me some science. Science and Children,
38(3), 44-48.
Greenwood, A. (1996). Science is the part of the big picture. Science and Children,
33(7), 32-33.
Guy, M. D., & Wilcox, J. (1998). Science discovery centers. Science and Children,
36(3), 50-53.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousandstudent survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American
Journal Physics, 66(1), 64-75.
Hamm. M., & Adams, D. (1998). Reaching across disciplines. Science and Children,
36(10), 45-49.
Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). A very science-like kind of
thinking: How young children make meaning from first-and-second-hand
investigations. Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(4), 455-506.
**Hapgood, S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2007). Where literacy and science intersect.
Educational Leadership, 64 (4), 56-60. (A great article!)
Hammer, M., & Polnick, B. (2007). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers.
Educational Leadership, 64 (4), 80-83.
Hardy, G. & Tolman, M. (1997). Rocket investigations. Science and Children, 34 (5),
8-9.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). Science analogies: Avoid misconceptions
with the systematic approach. The Science Teacher, 61(4), 40-43.
Haycock, K. (1998, summer). Good teaching matters…a lot. Thinking K-16, 3-14.
Hedgepeth, D. J. (1995). A comparison study of the learning cycle and a traditional
instructional sequence in teaching an eighth-grade science topic. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 46, 142A.
Hodson, D. (1994). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education.
Science Education, 77(6), 685-711.
Hogan, M. P. (2000). Chickscope realized: A situated evaluation of a sixth-grade
classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1). Available at
http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n1/hogan/index.html
16
Hohmann, C. (1998). Evaluating and selecting software for children. Child Care
Information Exchange, 123 60-62.
Howe, A.C. (1996). Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian framework.
Science Education, 80(1), 35-51.
Huntley, M. A. (1999). Theoretical and empirical investigations of integrated
mathematics and science education in the middle grades with implications for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(1), 57-67.
Hynd, C., Alvermann, D., & Qian, G. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers’
conceptual change about projectile motion: Refutation text, demonstration, effective
factors, and relevance. Science Education, 81(1), 1-28.
Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American
secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28, 26-37.
Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: A survey of what makes
students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 43,
172-194.
Iwasyk, M. (1997). Kids questioning kids: “Experts” sharing. Science and Children,
35(1), 42-46.
Jacobowitz, M. (1997). 30 tips for effective teaching. Science Scope, 21(4), 22-25.
James, R., Lamb. C., Householder, D., & Bailey, M. (2000). Integrating science,
mathematics and technology in middle school technology rich environments: A study
of implementation and change. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 27-35.
Jelmberg, J. (1996). College-based teacher education versus state-sponsored
alternative programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 60-66.
Jonassen, D. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technologies: A vision
for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational Technology, 35(4), 6063.
Jones, M. G. (1994). Assessment potpourri. Science and Children, 32(2), 14-17.
Jones, M. G., Carter, G., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Exploring the development of
conceptual ecologies: Communities of concepts related to convection and heat.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 139-159.
Kain, J. F., & Singleton, K. (1996, May/June). Equality of educational opportunity
revisited. New England Economic Review, 87-111.
Kalchman, M. (1998). Storytelling and astronomy. Science and Children, 36(3), 28-31,
70.
Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2003). No child left behind: The politics of teacher
quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 687-692.
Klienheider, J. (1996). Assessment matters. Science and Children, 33(4), 22-25.
17
Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D.C. (2003). In harm’s way: How under certified teachers
hurt their students. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 34-39.
Lamb, A., Smith, N., & Johnson, L. (1997). Wondering, wiggling, & weaving: A model
for project and community-based learning on the Web. Learning & Leading with
Technology, 24(7),6-13.
Lehman, J. (1994). Assessment for preservice teachers. Science and Children, 32(2),
48-49.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). Reasoning about structure and function: Children’s
conceptions of gears. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 3-25.
Leyden, M. B. (1991). Discrepant events. Teaching K-8, 21(5), 25-28.
Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). The role of teaching and learning in systemic reform: A
focus of professional development. Science Educator, 7(1), 1-6***
Loving, C. (1998). Young people’s images of science. Science Education, 82(6), 706710.
MacKinnon, G. R. (1998). Soap and science. Science and Children, 35(5), 28-31.
Madrazo, G. M., & Rhoton, J. (1999). Classroom meets real world. Science Scope,
22(4), 26-28.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. s., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting projectbased science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341-358.
Matkins, J. J. & Sterling, D. R. (2003). Designing assessments: science test questions
from National Assessment of Educational Progress tests can be helpful model when
creating assessments for your lessons. Science and Children, 40(8), 34-37.
Mayer, D. A. (1995). How can we best use children’s literature in teaching science
concepts? Science and Children, 32(6), 16-19, 43.
Mayer, R. E. (2004, January). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure
discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American
Psychologist, 59 (1), 14-19.
Mayer, V. J. (1995). Using the earth system for integrating the science curriculum.
Science Education, 79(4), 375-391.
McDonald, J., & Czerniak, K. (1994). Developing interdisciplinary units: Strategies and
examples. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 5-10.
McLaughlin, D. W. (1997). School to school partnership. Science and Children, 34(5),
26-29.
Mergendoller, J. R. (1997). From hands-on through minds-on to systemic reform in
science education. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 295-298.
Miller, K. W., Steiner, S. F., & Larson, C. D. (1996). Strategies for science learning.
Science and Children, 33(6), 24-27, 61.
Mitchell, R. (1999). Real testing, real learning. Science Scope, 22(1), 4-5.
18
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject-matter preparation of secondary mathematics and
science teachers. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.***
Morrison, D., & Collins, J. (1995). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning
environments. Educational Technology, 35(4), 60-63.
Munro, J. (1999). Learning more about learning improves teacher effectiveness.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6, 151-171.
Musheno, B. V., & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text
on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23-37.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s beliefs
about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 777-805.
Nelson, G. D. (1999). Back to basics: Thoughts on improving U. S. science
curriculum. The Science Teacher, 66(1), 54-57.
Nelson, G. D. (2001). Choosing content that’s worth knowing. Educational Leadership,
59 (2), 12-16.
Nelson, G. D., & Landel, C. C. (2007). A collaborative approach for elementary
science. Educational Leadership, 64 (4), 72-75.
Nicaise, M., & Barnes, D. (1996). The union of technology, constructivism, and
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 205-212.
Niess, M. L. (2001). A model for integrating technology in preservice science and
mathematics content specific teacher preparation. School Science and Mathematics,
101(2), 102-110.
Nuthall, G. (1999). The way students learn: Acquiring knowledge from integrated
science and social studies unit. The Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 303-341.
Padilla, M. J., & Pyle, E. J. (1996). Observing and inferring promotes science learning.
Science and Children, 33(8), 22-25.
Palmer, D. (1999). Exploring the link between students’ scientific and nonscientific
conceptions. Science Education, 83, 639-653.
Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of integration of science and mathematics:
Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73-82.***
Penick, J. E. (1996). Questions are the answers. Science Teacher, 63(1), 26-29.
Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1996). Children’s approaches to the concept of
volume. Science Education, 80(3), 341-360.
Redish, E. F., Steinberg, R. N. (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works.
Physics Teacher, 52 (1), 24-31.
Robertson, B. (2007). Getting past ‘inquiry versus content’, Educational Leadership,
64 (4), 67-70.
19
Rowe, M. B. (1987). Wait-time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up.
American Educator, 11(1), 38-47.
Rowe, M. B. (1996). Science, silence, and sanctions. Science and Children, 34(10),
35-37.
Rye, J. A., & Rubba, P. A. (1998). An exploration of the concept map as an interview
tool to facilitate the externalization of students’ understanding about global
atmospheric change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 521-546.
Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Common misconceptions in
electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 34(4), 377-398.
Sato, M., & Atkin, J. M. (2007). Supporting change in classroom assessment.
Educational Leadership, 64 (4), 76-79.
Searson, R., & Dunn, R. (2001). The learning style teaching model. Science and
Children, 38(5), 22-26.
Sexton, U. (1998). Each day is an opportunity: Reflections from 1998 Shell awardee.
Science and Children, 36(1), 40-42.
Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teaching thinking
during an independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face of science
that does not yet know.” Science Education, 80(5), 535-560.
Shaw, E. L., & Hatfield, M. M. (1996). A survey of the use of science manipulatives in
elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
404160.)
Shepardson, D., & Britsch, S. (2001). The role of children’s journals in elementary
school science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 43-69.
Skinner, R. (2002). Tracking tech trends. Education Week, 21(35), 53-95.
Sneider, C. I., & Ohadi, M. M. (1998). Unraveling students’ misconceptions about the
Earth’s shape and gravity. Science Education, 82, 265-284.
Stahly, L. L., Krockover, G. H., & Shepardson, D. P. (1999). Third grade students’
ideas about the lunar phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 159-177.
Stavy, R. (1991a). Children’s conceptions of changes in the state of matter: From
liquid (or solid) to gas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 247-266.
Stavy, R. (1991b). Children’s ideas about matter. School Science and Mathematics,
91, 240-244.
Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and
science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (1) 101-109***
Suares, M., Pias, R., Membiela, P., & Dapia, D. (1998). Classroom environment in the
implementation of an innovative curriculum project in science education. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-696.
20
Sylvan, P. K. (1999). Primary paleontologists. Science and Children, 36(4), 16-20.
Taiwo, A. a., Ray, H., Motswiri, M. F., & Masene, R. (1999). Perceptions of the water
cycle among primary school children in Botswana. International Journal of Science
Education, 21, 413-429.
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2006). Inter-texuality in read-alouds of integrated
science-literacy units in urban primary classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2),
211-259.
Volkmann, M. J. & Abell, S. K. (2003). Seamless assessment: using the 5E learning
model, the authors describe their strategies for embedding assessment throughout a
unit teaching pre-service teachers about the phases of the moon. Science and
Children, 40(8), 41-45.
Wang, M., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1994). What helps students learn. Educational
Leadership, 51(4), 74-79.
Wheeler, G. F. (2007). Strategies for science education reform. Educational
Leadership, 64(4), 30-34.
Wilson, S. M., & et al. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view from
the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190-204.
Wise, K. C. (1996). Strategies for teaching science: what works? The Clearing House,
July/August, 337-338.
Zmach, C. C., et al. (2007). Infusing reading into science learning. Educational
Leadership, 64 (4), 62-66.
Zhao, Y., Pugh. K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom
technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
Resource:
Educational Innovations, Inc. 362 Main Ave., Norwalk, CT 06851
Phone: 203 - 229 - 0730, Fax: 203 - 229 - 0740,
e-mail: info@teachersource.com
Website: www.teachersource.com
When you are teaching and you would like your school to partner with the MCSTEM institute
at Mississippi College contact Debbie Raddin, Co-Director for Development of the MCSTEM
Institute at 601-925-3226. The MCSTEM institute staff will provide staff development, lessons,
resources, coaching, assessments, etc.
For more information about other science resources visit this site:
www.sciencefunday.org
For information about texts in science and language arts written by undergraduate and graduate
students at Mississippi College visit this site:
www.lulu.com
Type in search box….”The Wonders of Science Book 1”
“The Wonders of Science Book 2”
Books of songs and poetry
IV. Proposed Course Calendar (SPRING, 2016):
21
#
Date
1
01/12/16
Topic
Tuesday

Discussion over syllabus – course
requirements in Science

Power Point on Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS) common
core in science
Assignment

Edublog
Due
(2) Journal article
summaries and
hard-copy journal
articles are due
03/26/16
Electricity: STEM grabbers
2

01/19/16
Electricity: STEM grabbers
Tuesday
3

01/26/16
Tuesday
4
(2) Journal article
summaries and
hard-copy journal
articles are due
03/26/16
Motion/Forces “Grabbers”
Physics
02/02/16

STEM vehicle design
Tuesday

Engineering Design Model
(1)-blog on
X
Electricity due
01/26/16
X
(2)-blog on
Motion & Forces
due 02/02/16
Write a 5E lesson
on motion activity –
car due 02/16/16
X
(3)- blog on
STEM activity
due on 02/09/16
X
(4)-blog on
Project WILD
due 02/16/16
Media due 02/23/16
Video due 02/23/16
5
02/09/16

Project WILD

Angel Rohnke, Mississippi Museum of
Natural Science
Tuesday
(National Curriculum) Resource

6

02/016/16
Tuesday

7
8
10
11
STEM building
design/construction/test
Engineering Design Model
02/23/16

Energy “Grabbers”
Tuesday

Physics
03/01/16

Project Learning Tree (PLT)
resource

Harold Anderson


MS Forestry Association & Project
Learning Tree Coordinator
Life Science
03/15/16

Sound “Grabbers”
Tuesday

Physics
03/22/16

STEM wave machine

Physics

Final Examination in Science
Tuesday
9
Life Science
03/29/16
Need to bring $20
cash for the PLT
curriculum text
X
X
X
(5)-blog on
energy grabbers
due 03/01/16
(6)-blog on
Project Learning
Tree (PLT) due
on 03/15/16
(7)-blog on
Sound grabbers
due 03/22/16
Tuesday
22
Final Rubric: EDU 312 Science for Children
CATEGORY
Expert - 4
Proficient - 3
Emergent - 2
Novice - 1
Edublog
Found in
http://jhuntmc.
edublogs.org
Student is able to
navigate Edublog
and is able to write 7
summaries on a
topic discussed in
class and show
understanding
through this
medium.
Student is able to
develop a
tables/graph using
Excel. Graph and
table is labeled,
titled, and
interpreted correctly
Student has no
grammatical errors
in the reflections,
article summaries &
student response
sheets.
Student is able to
navigate Edublog and
is able to write 5-6
summaries on a topic
discussed in class and
show understanding
through this medium.
Student is able to
navigate Edublog
and is able to write 34 summaries on a
topic discussed in
class and show
understanding
through this medium.
Student is able to
navigate Edublog
and is able to write 12 summaries on a
topic discussed in
class and show
understanding
through this medium.
Student is able to
develop a graph using
Excel. Graph is
labeled, titled, and
interpreted correctly
Student is able to
develop a table using
Excel. Tables is
labeled, titled, and
interpreted correctly
Student is not able to
develop 1 table/graph
using Excel.
Student has a few
grammatical errors in
the reflections, article
summaries, & student
response sheets.
Student’s work
contains grammatical
errors in the
reflections, article
summaries, & student
response sheets.
Student’s work shows
a pattern of
grammatical errors in
the reflections, article
summaries, & student
response sheets.
Student writes
summary articles on
two journal articles
and also includes a
response or
reaction/reflection.
Also, includes the
original article.
Student successfully
completes a vehicle
and the vehicle is
able to travel over
ONE meter.
Student team works
well together. Class
completes the 5 E
STEM lesson with
video and or power
point
A 90 – 100%
Student writes
summary article on one
journal article and also
includes a response or
reaction/reflection. OR
does not include the
original article.
Student writes
summary articles on
two journal articles
and does not include
a response or
reaction/reflection.
Also, includes the
original article.
Student successfully
completes a vehicle
but the vehicle will not
travel one meter.
Student does not
write summary
articles on journal
articles and does not
include a response or
reaction/reflection.
OR does not include
the original article.
Student cannot make
the vehicle and it will
not travel ONE meter.
Data/Graphs
Grammar
Journal
Articles
In – Class
STEM project
5 ESTEM
Lesson a
Pasta Vehicle
Grade/Level
Student successfully
completes a vehicle
and the vehicle is able
to travel ONE meter.
B 80 – 89%
Student team does
not work well and
some parts of the
lesson are missing.
Video and power
point are incomplete
C 70 – 79%
Score
D 60 - 69%
23
Teacher 5 E Lesson Sample:
What makes a squirt gun squirt?
“YOU MAY NOT (THE LAST TIME) expect to find engineering and squirt guns in the
same sentence. However, like many examples of engineering design, the squirt gun pump mechanism
is uncomplicated, yet elegant, and very inexpensive to manufacture. The squirt gun may be purchased
for a little as 33 cents. The type of pump used in squirt guns is known as a positive displacement
pump. Positive displacement pumps are so called because fluid is trapped within the pump and then
moved through-or displaced- in one (positive) direction. The design is widely used because of its
simplicity and low cost. With only a few moving parts, it is able to deliver a stream of water, a spray of
cleanser, or a squirt of liquid soap. The pumping mechanism of spray bottles, liquid soap dispensers,
and squirt guns are basically the same. The International Technology and Engineering Educators
Association standard,’ A product, system, or environment developed for one setting may be applied to
another setting.’ (ITEA 2002, p. 49) In this lesson, we will examine how these simple, everyday pumps
operate.
Historical Information
The first squirt guns were developed as toys in the late 1890s. They made use of a metal toy gun with
a long tube that was attached to a squeeze bulb filled with water. To operate the gun, one merely
squeezed the bulb. Trigger-type squirt guns were developed in the 1930s and were the main type of
water gun until the 1980s, when Super Soaker types were introduced.
The same pump technology was used for a number of other purposes. While liquid soap had been
around for some time, it was not until the 1940s that the first mechanical dispensers were produced
(Kleinman, 2003). Aerosol dispensers require a compressed propellant and therefore must be
packaged in cylindrical containers, while pump dispensers can be made in any shaped package. The
propellants (chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs) used in aerosol cans in the past were harmful to the
Earth’s ozone layer. In 1979, a liquid soap known as Softsoap was introduced and immediately
became popular. Since 2003, foaming liquid soaps have become the latest fad. They make use of the
same basic pump, but add air to the soap, which produces the foam.
Investigating a Squirt Gun: What Makes It Squirt? (Teacher Background Information)
Engage
Safety note: Students should wear chemical splash goggles for this entire activity.
Distribute one eyedropper and a cup of water to each group of three or four students. Only a small
amount of water should be used: 3 oz. (90 mL) disposable cups partially filled. It is also recommended
that student tables be covered with a bath towel. Ask students to see if they can determine how water
is drawn into and pushed into and pushed out of the dropper. Have students explain in their journals
what they had to do to operate the dropper (they must squeeze the bulb and then release the bulb
under the surface of the water). Use this discussion to lead to the following Explore question: What
makes a squirt gun work?
Explore
You made need one squirt gun for each group of three to four students. Prior to class time, you should
remove the pump assembly from each squirt gun. This can be done carefully prying open
the two halves of the body of the squirt gun with a slender screwdriver. You made to cut through the
glue holding the molded sides together. Once opened, the pump assembly can be removed in tact.
The squirt gun should readily come apart. Keep the parts from each squirt gun in a clear zipper-type
baggie. If none of the parts are lost or broken, the pumping mechanism can be reassembled and used
over again with another class of students. You may wish to have a few extra squirt guns available in
case some of the small parts are lost.
24
Have students determine which ends must be placed in the cup of water in order for it to squirt. One
end will draw water in and the other squirts it out of the pump. If students put the squirting end in the
water, the pump will not work. Focus students on trying to answer this question,
‘What makes the gun squirt and how does that compare with how the dropper works?’ The pumping
mechanism is actually made of just a few parts. The trigger pushes in a piston and compresses a
spring. The body of the pump has openings at each end. There are two halves, one at each end of the
pump body, and they are often called check valves. A check valve is simply a one-way valve that
allows fluids to move through in only one direction. There is a tube at the top of the pump body that
leads to the nozzle and short tube at the bottom of the reservoir.
Explain
A major difference between the squirt gun pump and the rudimentary pump of the eyedropper is that
the dropper takes in water and expels it through the same end. When the bulb is squeezed, some air
is forced out of the dropper. Therefore, the pressure in the dropper is reduced; when the bulb is
released under water, the higher atmospheric pressure forces water into the dropper. In the late
1800s, squirt guns were similar to a dropper in that there was a bulb that was squeezed for its
operation. The squirt gun pump is a mechanism that moves water through itself in only one direction. It
draws water in one end (when the trigger is released) and expels it through the nozzle end when the
trigger is depressed. How does this work? Let’s consider the process step by step. The first time the
trigger is depressed, air is forced out of the pump. When the trigger is released, the spring forces the
piston open and the pressure in the pump is reduced. This causes both the valves to move toward the
pump body, which causes the upper valve to seal against the body pump. The water entering the
pump body pushes up the lower valve. The water remains in the pump until the trigger is pulled again.
When the trigger is depressed, the pressure in the pump is increased, forcing the top valve (opening it)
and pushing the lower valve down (closing it); the water is then forced out of the nozzle. Therefore,
when the trigger is pulled, the top valve is open and the bottom valve is closed, but when the trigger is
released, the top valve is closed and the bottom valve opens. Releasing the trigger repeats the
process, filling the pump with water again.
After students taken apart the pumps, discuss their ideas regarding how the flow of water differs in an
eyedropper and in a squirt gun pump. Ask students if they can determine the flow of water through the
pump. Challenge them as to the purpose of the valves. At this time you may introduce vocabulary
such as valve, piston, reservoir, and nozzle.
Students should have little difficulty determining the purpose of the piston, reservoir, and the nozzle,
but this may be their first investigation of a valve.
Extend
Provide each group of students with the pumping mechanism from a liquid soap dispenser or spray
bottle. If you reuse a cleanser bottle, make sure that it has been thoroughly rinsed. Empty bottles can
also be purchased at most dollar stores for approximately $1 each. Students should conclude that
although they look a bit different, these pumps function in the same way as those found in squirt guns.
They all have some type of piston pump, a reservoir of liquid, a nozzle of some sort, and two valves.
The valves may differ-you may have a flap, a disk, or other shapes. Note that once a device has been
engineered, it can often be used, with minor changes, for many other purposes-in this case, everything
from squirt guns to soap dispensers to spray bottles. You can ask students to find examples at home
and share the results of this type of scavenger hunt with the class. Another principle of engineering
also shown here is that designers have been able to make many everyday devices with very few
moving parts and for low manufacturing costs.
25
Evaluate
Students should be able to make a sketch of the critical parts of their pumping mechanism from the
Extend stage. They should label and indicate with arrows the flow of liquid. Each sketch should include
a reservoir, a pump with a spring and piston, a nozzle, and two one-way valves.
Conclusion
A basic principle of engineering is to apply known technology to new applications. In this lesson,
students investigate several uses for inexpensive positive displacement pumps. They also have the
opportunity to try to invent their own use for such devices. This encourages students to become
curious about how even simple things around them function. This curiosity may be the first step for
students to develop an interest in engineering as a possible career.” (Moyer, R. & S. Everett, pp 109113)
References
International Technology Education Association. 2002. Standards for technological literacy:
Content for the study of technology. 2nd.ed. Reston, VA: ITEA
Kleinman, M. 2003. New life in the handsoap. Soap and cosmetics, a Chemical Week
Associates publication, February.
Moyer, R. & S. Everett. 2012. Everyday Engineering: Putting the E in STEM Teaching
And Learning. Arlington, VA: NSTA press
26
Student Response Sheet
Investigating a Squirt Gun: What Makes It Squirt?
In this activity, you are going to take apart a squirt gun to find out what makes it squirt and
compare it with an eyedropper.
Engage
Safety note: Wear chemical-splash goggles for this activity.
1. Cover your work area with a towel or newspaper. Use the materials from your teacher, fill and
empty the dropper to see if you can determine how it works.
2. What must you do to fill it with water? What must you do to empty the water?
Explore
1. Examine the pumping mechanism from the squirt gun. What must you do to fill and empty the
pump mechanism in water?
2. Carefully take apart the pumping mechanism without breaking the pieces. Try to determine
how each part in the system works to draw water in and squirt it out.
3. Make a drawing of your findings to show how the squirt gun pump operates. Use arrows to
show the flow of water.
Explain
1. Make a drawing of the eyedropper. Use arrows to show the flow of water in and out.
2. How does the eyedropper differ from the squirt gun?
3. What do you think the small parts at the top and bottom of the body of the pump are used for?
Extend
1. Observe the pump your teacher has provided. For what was your pump used?
2. Is the pump more like the eyedropper or the squirt gun?
3. Does the pump have any valves? If so, where are they located?
4. Brainstorm other uses for the positive displacement pump. Describe what task your invention
accomplishes.
Evaluate
Draw and label the pump and the flow of liquid. (Moyer, R. & S. Everett, p.113)
27