Since the last post, both classes have been working to unravel the mysteries of living things. This has been particularly challenging for three main reasons:
1) Students have been asked to do a great deal of brainstorming, analyzing, and discussing — lots of thinking and talking and less doing than usual. This week, we finally reached the doing part, hooray!
2) The scientific definition of a living thing is complex and even established scientists do not all agree on every characteristic of living things.
3) Young people’s existing ideas of what constitutes “living” tend to be remarkably solid. Take the idea that all living things move. Even after multiple discussions and brainstorming exceptions to this “rule,” many students maintain it. Why? I believe that this idea, among others, is based on their direct observations of the world. Direct observation is a much more trustworthy source than someone telling you that all living things are made of tiny things you cannot even see (cells)! That said, this year, both classes were remarkably sagacious in their suggestions for what might be universal characteristics of living things. Based on their collective pre-knowledge, and their ability to share it with each other, we skipped a lesson they didn’t need.
Both classes enjoyed reading Alexander and the Wind Up Mouse, by Leo Lionni, which tells the story of a living mouse and a mechanical one. We used this reading for three main purposes:
- Respectful skepticism: With the Lionni book projected on the screen, I recited a totally different book. Sometimes students remain quiet as I read the wrong book, and gradually begin to suspect something is amiss. This year, both classes quickly recognized their right — actually their responsibility — to speak up when things don’t seem right. With this already in their toolbox, we went right into learning how to take that skepticism and express it respectfully so that people in authority will be more likely to listen.
- Ethical growth: In the story, Alexander visits a genie-like creature and makes a wish on behalf of his friend Willy. At the end, students were asked to discuss whether or not they believed it was fair or right for Alexander to make a wish for his friend? We spent a good amount of time discussing this, with children on both sides of the debate respectfully supporting their point of view, and listening to opposing views. You might drop this statement in the car sometime and see if your children pick it up: “Mr. Oremland wrote to me about Alexander and Willy the wind-up mouse. He said that you and your class talked about whether or not it was right for one mouse to make a wish for the other one.”
- Characteristics of life: The two mice in the story had characteristics that people use to separate things into the categories of “living” and “non-living.” Students analyzed these in order to derive a list of things all living things have or do, and then tried to “break the rules” they’d made by asking, “let’s think of a living thing that doesn’t have/do that.”
Students then learned the five most concrete characteristics of living things (take in energy, adapt, reproduce, grow, and are made of cells), then finally got to use their stuffed animals!
Students were challenged to imagine, “what if my stuffed animal were alive?” They are now in the process of drawing their non-living pets and then adding five additional drawings (one for each of the five characteristics) to illustrate the answer to that question. This work allows the students build their cognition, knowledge, and understanding, while I simultaneously coach them and assess their growth. Please do what you can to remind your child to bring in their stuffed animal — having it on hand helps your child connect their concrete observations with their abstract knowledge and imagination.
With some luck and diligence, both classes are on track to finish these by Friday. I expect that next week, they’ll be ready to delve into the get-your-hands-dirty experimental science I really love exploring with students. Students will be challenged to ask their own “what if” question — a hypothesis, actually — and then design and carry out their own experiments to confirm or invalidate their hypothesis.