STEM in classrooms

 

I had a group of middle school students, grade 7 specifically. This was an IGCSE group, and we had to cover volume of a cylinder.

As the development age was Erikson’s fourth stage, Industry versus Inferiority, when peer group gets an important point in their lives (McLeod, 2015). So, I was clear that I needed to do a group task with the students. I also wanted to do something where they had space to take an initiative and were not bound by a linear task with a clear end goal.

The thinking skills expected form them were being able to create abstractions, as they were at the border of concrete and formal operations stage (psychologynoteshq.com/ kohlbergstheory/, 2015). I wanted them to explore, investigate and deduce a pattern.

Our school had several cylindrical pillars and I decided to take the class outside to observe them.  I had a choice between following the scientific method, that is a fixed, clear path with linear steps for them and an end game (Bacolor, Chowning and Bell, 2015). The other way was the risky – open ended task – for them. I chose the latter. I wanted them to support their learning while they conducted their investigations and demonstrate their understanding in a way that they found most suitable (Bacolor, Chowning and Bell, 2015).

 The students were asked to work in groups, take a pillar each, and figure out the volume of the pillar. They did not know any formula but were aware of pi. Through all the brainstorming and discussions, they came to the conclusion that they needed area of base and height of the pillar. Now, the pillar was way tall! Finding the height of the pillar needed another discussion. And true to their developmental stage, they found the height in multiple ways.

One group did it by climbing on each other’s shoulder. They ensured that no one was hurt and only the most agile of the students tried the innovative way to find the height. Another brought in ratio and used their height and shadow to find the needful. Another created a tall structure using newspapers rolled and with lots of attempts, raised it high.

Finally, we had the volumes of all the pillars. Once in class, we reflected and discussed the task, the process followed and also inquired into what more questions can be asked following this task. Each group then created a project report, explaining in detail the method followed by them to find volume of the pillar and justified it with figures and explanations. Some groups also went to the building in charge to compare the volume obtained by them to the actual measure.

Conclusion

I did not wish for the learning experience to be static. I wanted it to be such that a rigorous and engaging classroom experience could come out of it (Stemteachingtools, 2019). The students did not follow a static process but involved themselves in a lot of thinking, planning and discussions. They also ended with more questions such as, ‘Do we need formulae?’ or ‘How can we find volume of a sphere?’ or ‘What if the pillar was double high? What would we do then?’

 

References:

1. Bacolor, R., Peterman, T., Chowning, J., & Bell, P. (2015).  Why focus on science and engineering practices—and not “inquiry?” Why is “the scientific method” mistaken? STEM Teaching Tools, 32. Retrieved from http://stemteachingtools.org/assets/landscapes/STEM-Teaching-Tool-32-Practices-Not-Scientific-Method.pdf
2. Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development (2015). Retrieved from https://www.psychologynoteshq.com/kohlbergstheory/ 
3. McLeod, S. (2018). Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html
4. Stemteachingtools. (2019). Are there multiple instructional models that fit with the science and engineering practices in NGSS? (Short answer: Yes.). Retrieved September 13, 2020, from http://stemteachingtools.org/brief/4