The essay: Choose one activity from this year and identify the steps of the scientific method that were included in the activity. Be sure to include an activity that involved all of the steps.
Answer this in a comment, and you won't have to complete the same science essay tomorrow.
Science Vodcasts
Where Our Visitors Come From
Monday, May 14, 2012
Essay and End-of-the-Year Form
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The World's QR Code
25 comments:
The activity I chose was the video we made in the beginning of the year. The problem was: Does how you eat and train affect how you run? Who will win- Isaiah or Emily? Next we hypothesized. Isaiah said he would be lazy and eat junk food and would still win. Emily hypothesized that she would run and eat healthily and train (with Allie) so she could win. Then the experiment came. Emily trained and train and she beat Isaiah in the race!!! Analysis showed that Emily's hypothesis was correct and Isaiah's was not. The conclusion was that you need to train hard and eat healthily if you want to win a race.
i liked the human bohr model because, i got to go in the tub and measure my density. It took the steps of slowly getting in so we could get as accurate of reading as possible and see how much came out... Our purpose was to measure density. We reasearched it and used a formulal to calculate the density. Also we guessed at what we thought my density would be at. We then purformed our expirement. When i got out we took a look at how much water was left and in the end we discussed the overal idea and what happend.
I liked the Human Bohr model. The first was seeing how much water was displaced when Kyle got in the tank. Then we had to reasearch about how to do it ad what we needed. After that we formed a hypothesis of how much water would be displaced when he got in the tank. The next step was doing the experiment. After the experiment we analysised the data we recived from the experment. Finaly we compared the data of whe recived to our hypothesis.
When we had to test to see what the element was. We had to think of the mineral and of of the properties it had. then with thoseproperties we conducted the search on a computer. then we came up with a hypothisi of what we thought it was. then we tested it to see if were right. then at the end we talke and told people what the mineral was.
I liked the one were we had to see if warm water was less or more dense than cold air. First we had to identify the problem, which I just said we had to see if warm water was less or more dense than cold water. Then, we made a hypothesis, and mine was that the warm water would stay at the top. After that, we set up the experiment, which we but blue food coloring in the cold water and red in the warm water. We had a container with a divider. Then we started the experiment. We put the cold water in one side and the warm water in the other side. We took out the divider and let the two waters mix. My conclusion is that I was right, the cold blue water stayed at the top while the warm red water stayed at the bottom. So that was my favorite experiment this year.
When we did the Coke Vs. Diet Coke lab we used the scientific method through out the whole lab. Infact the whole lab was based on one question which was "Which can will float and which can will sink?" and the first step in the scientific method is to ask a question,so that was already covered. The second thing I did was think of all the background knowledge I knew about the two Coke Products. From my background knowledge of that Diet Coke had this ingredient, which for some odd reason I can't remember right now, which makes it lighter then the sugar in regular coke which would make it be able to float.I also knew that since the sugar and the other ingredients in Coke that Diet Coke dosen't have makes it heavyer, so I thought it would sink. Then when we put each can in the tank of water a very very odd thing happened that shouldn't, both cans floated. Since both cans floated I analyzed my data, and since the Coke can normaly sinks in most experiments I came up with the conclusion that my hypothesis is normaly right. I also came up with the conclusion that what happend in out experiment is a very odd thing. After the lab I communicated my results with Nick L..
The cross country meet vodcast.
1. the problem was that emily was slow and she needed to get faster.
2. the hypothesis was to train well and eat good.
3. then they did research to know how many hours to train and what to eat.
4. they experemented by having a race against isaiah
5. emily beat isaiah in the race
6. they came to a conclusion that if you sit around and do nothing rather than train you wont get very far.
The vodcast we made for cross country
1. Problem- Emily needed to beat Isaiah in cross country.
2.-Hypothesis-If Emily trains well (with help from her awesome trainor:)and eats healthy then she will be able to beat Isaiah.
3.-Research-We found out that most of the great athletes would eat healthy and train very hard!
4.-Experiment-Emily trains very hard while Isaiah just sits around and eats junk food. Then we have a race!
5.-Results-Emily ended up beating Isaiah in the race!
6.-Conclusion-Since Emily trained very hard and ate healthy compared to Isaiah not eating very healthy or training .... it made Emily faster and she was able to beat him!
The water tanks lab
to see the less dense and more dense waters overlap eachother. The reserch was when we learned that less dense went over more dense. My hypothisis was the red would go ove the blue water. Experiment we took the colored water and saw them overlap. The less dense went over and the more dense sunk. conslusion the more dense sunk while the less dense went over top.
My favorite was the GPS Thing. the question was where were the containers. The background research was you telling us how to use them. how hypothesis would be where we thought they were generaly at. testing would be looking for them. analyzing your data would be looking back and seeing how many you got and communicating would be sharing your results
-Gavin Borstad
Activity: air pressure demonstration.
Scientific method use:
1.)We were faced with the problem of how to break a stick with a newspaper, a fist, a desk, and the air.
2.)We hypothesized that the air would press down on the paper over the stick enough to break it.
3.)We had recently learned of air pressure, and thought it possible.
4.)We experimented. Mr.Hoegh tried to break the stick. It worked.
5.)We analyzed how much air pressure was on the stick before it was broken. There was a lot.
6.)We drew the conclusion that air pressure is powerful enough to break a stick. Don't mess with the atmosphere.
I believe land and water heating lab represents a good visionary of the steps to the scientific method. First we had to predict what would heat faster, the sand in the pie pan or the water, when placed an equal distance from a lightbulb. Next we had to figure out what heats faster on Earth, and whether or not that would relate to our experiment. Then next we had to create an hypothesis that we think woukd fit, and after doing my research I would think the sand would heat faster. So we tested the hypothesis, and after looking over and analyzing our results we found that the land not only heated faster, but also cooled faster. In conclusion, the sand represented the land and water represented oceans and other bodies of water, and matched the way Earth works. So we found the land does in fact heat and cool faster than the water, and water retains temperature for longer.
Essay: Human Bohr Model
Problem: How can we make replica elements using people as protons, neutrons, and electrons
Hypothesis: If we can give people jobs for each and use out periodic table, we can represent the elements.
Research: We learned how to find the protons, neutrons, and electrons of an element so that we knew what to do when we got out there. We also developed a strategy to work as a team and listen well.
Experiment: We decided to compete against the other classes to see if we could come out victorious!
Analyze: At the end of our test, we had achieved being able to read the periodic table well enough to make the elements quickly.
Conclusion: It is very possible to make a model of an element using people if you give yourself the correct information to do so.
We did many different experements this year using all of the the steps of the scientific method. One of my favorite experiments was the water density lab.
The problem was that we didn't know what temperature had to do with density. My hypothesis was that there is warm water at the top and cold at the bottom but I didn't know why. We researched this and found that in the ocean, there is warm water at the surface, and cold as the depth increases. Our experement included cold blue water and warm red water. We colored the water so we know where the cold and warm water were at after we combined them. We analyzed what happened and found that the red (warm) water rose to the top and th blue (cold) water sank to the bottom. The reason this happened was because the cold water is more dense than the warm water. Our results were that different temperature hav different densities and that we found that the water are similar in this way.
I really liked the all that acti;vities we did in class. They all were fun and i learned alot!
I picked the land and water heating lab. To start there was a problem, we needed to know what heats and cools faster, land or water.Since I know that it takes long to heat up hot chocolate or coffee I think that the water will heat slower, and my hot chocolate actually cools for a long so I also think that water will cool slower. Next we set up the lab and heat up the same amount of water and sand at the same heat. Then we continually at intervals took the tempurature and figured out that land heats faster than water. The we shut the light off and took tempuratures at regular intervals to see which cools faster, and land cooled faster too. The results are that land heats and cools faster than water. So the conclusion would be that the cooler water heats slower than the land and the cooler water also loses its tempurature slower.
The activity I am choosing is the one where we pumped the air into the plastic pop bottles. Our first "problem" was how much pressure would it take in the bottle for the cap to shoot off. We saw video evidence from other classes doing itand thought we could pull it off, so we saw what they did and did something similar. We formed a hypothesis and guessed at how many pumps it would take to make the cap fly. Then it was time to test out our theory. We pumped and pumped until the cap shot in the air, we did this several times to see if there was a pattern. After we got done recording our data we found that there was no definate pattern and it was a large range of # of pumps. Then the class shared its discovery and class went on a usual the next day.
My essay is on the bottles and air pressure thing we did outside. I think that when you let the cap off that it will fly just like a water bottle and the more you pump the farther it goes. The experiment we already did outside. I was right that due to the air pressure built up and when you let it all go it will fly off and cause some smoke to come out of it.
The lab I am choosing is the air pressure lab. Questions we wanted to figure out were, how much air pressure could the bottle hold and did the mass and other things increase with the amount of pressure. Than we looked at other students trying the same activity. Are groups hypothesis was that the mass would increase with the amount of pressure. The lab we did was we put a fizz keeper on a bottle and pumped air into it. We came to the conclusion that the mass did increase and that when you would open the lid to release the pressure smoke would form. Are hypothesis was corrected for this lab.
In the activity where we found the air humidity and relative humidity in the air. First we asked the question what was the relative humidity in multiple places. Then we figured out how to measure the air pressure in the room. Then we guessed what it would be by looking at the temperatures in other places. After that we went to the places and mesured the relative humidity. Then we went to the class and compared our answers to other groups and came up with mean of the date, and we got our results.
Problem: The problem was we had t identify minerals that we didn't know.
Hypothosis: We guessed what they were by looking at the minerals.
Experiment: Used a lot of different properties to figure out what the minerals were.
Analize: We wrote down all the information we got.
Resolution: Knew what all the minerals were.
The GPS contest. The problem was that we didn't know where the canisters were. We had to do research which was Mr. Hoegh telling us how to use the GPS. My hypothesis was that there werre a lot out in the field because of the GPS flags. For the expierment we went out and looked in the field. for our conclusion we found out that there were only 3 in there.
The Mineral Identification Lab
1. Problem: What kind of mineral is each rock?
2. Research: What properties does each rock have?
3. Hypothesis: I believe this rock is a . . .
4. Experiment: Check the streak, luster, whether it has special properties, etc.
5. Results: Compare the chart with the data you've collected.
6. Conclusion: If you collected the correct data, you can see if your hypothesis was correct.
GPS activity
First we had our problem, we needed to search for a geocache with a GPS. Second, we formed a hypothesis of where it could be. We thought one would be near the ice rink, so we ran there. We also used the names as clues. Third, for research we looked at our GPS to see what it showed us. Fourth, we experimented with what the GPS said and followed the arrow. Fifth, we analyzed our surroundings until we found the film container. Finally, we concluded where the geocache was and repeated.
I liked the gps hunt. First we needend to know where the cans where. we thought there ere some under the benches.we followed the gps quardinates. we searched under benches. We found what was inside the cans.we found out where the cans where.
Post a Comment