airful!+day+1+reflection

Post here comments on what worked, and didn't, where extra adults were needed, what the kids didn't know at the start (that we expected them to know), what they really seemed to grasp, and what they seem to have missed, etc.

KF: I was really impressed by all the centers, as were the Tamarac teachers. I got really appreciate feedback. I noted a few things:
 * Many of the kids didn't know the term "pollution" at the outset, and describing it as "poison" seemed to work well.
 * The energy-pollution connection center was really good (on a lot of levels, just teaching input/output, for example), but needed an adult for every two kids to keep it moving.
 * We need to create many opportunities for the kids to play back to us what they have learned; this will help retention, and also help develop articulation skils. Many of the kids strugged to say what they were thinking.
 * Brian handed off your written curriculum modules to the teachers; they said the really appreciated the detail, and care taken with timing, concepts, etc

Kelley F: Overall, great! However, time limited what I had hoped to achieve.
 * If I were to do this again, I would cut out some of the PowerPoint presentation. It was definitely a helpful addition, but it was more productive to directly interact with the students and ask what they already know about pollution.
 * I included a map in the PowerPoint of acid rain and its prevalence in the United States. The kids seemed to find this really interesting and were able to talk about why they thought there was more pollution in the East where there are larger cities.
 * I wanted to spend more time having more of a dialogue about the issues, but there was not much time. Also, they strayed off subject a few times and I had to reel them back in.
 * They LOVED that they get to be "scientists" and perform an experiment on the plants. Having the lab notebook and telling them scientists also keep one seemed to excite them.
 * The introductory section went over fairly well, but it took some extra time to explain what pollution is, as many either didn't know or couldn't put it into words.
 * My blocks floated in the water, so I think they were a bit confused about the analogy between a city and our tub of water.
 * Also, one of my groups toward the end really didn't want us to leave because they were having so much fun. One said, "Lena's mom could just stay here and teach and then you could go to school here and never have to leave!"

Ben Morse:

Overall:


 * The kids seemed very enthusiastic for learning especially when there are visuals.
 * With limited time i think it will be more beneficial in the future to go over fewer details, but in much more depth to make sure they grasp it, rather than rushing to cover everything. This way we can be certain that they come away from the module with something lasting.
 * I think most of us realized that their understanding of terms like pollution are very basic if understood, so we want to make sure that they have a fairly strong understanding of these fundamental terms before we move on or it will be very difficult for them to understand what they are trying to learn.
 * Secondly, it was clear that some groups were at different levels than others, and i think it would be great if we were prepared to discuss and perform the modules at slightly varying levels of difficulty or discussion.
 * It is important to use words they understand to convey ideas, but also to introduce correct terminology in tandem with their current vocabulary so they can expand their knowledge.
 * Doing this tends to take time, but i think is vary important for them to have a take away message if they are able to communicate to other what they did and how they learned.
 * When Professor Fortun did that at the end of the time period i think it showed how important this is, and should be something we do every time as it helps solidify what they learned. Some kids seemed to grasp what we did fairly well while others were a bit shaky.

First exercise
 * technical problems:
 * blocks should be of a material that doesn't float (perhaps just add weight to the blocks by gluing washers to it or adding screws), should be more of them and perhaps smaller in proportion to the size of the container
 * the rice was heavy which lead it to sink and not move well by mixing with a pencil. maybe with the combination of heavier "buildings" and a stronger stirrer this would be overcome
 * What worked well:
 * The kids in my group really loved the dye dispersion in water. It grabbed their attention and made them think about how gasses move and disperse, more so than the rice did.
 * keeping the kids involved with hands on activities helped to keep their attention and on track where they were actively learning. Perhaps when we have PowerPoints or sections were we do a lot of one sided discussion we can break it up where they intermittently have to do something non lecture based. For example at the flower station where the power point talked about the statues and acid rain we could transition to the chalk in the vinegar briefly before continuing the presentation.
 * concept issues
 * there was a perceived gap and lack of interest when trying to connect back to the Big 6 polluting gasses. interest sharply fell mostly i believe because of the lecture based style and unfamiliarity with the content as they don't know chemistry yet and it is mostly intangible to them. This is an important issue for this module because they are supposed to grasp that there are these pollutants that fill the air we breath, even though we cannot see them.

Flower station: Derek F
 * technical problems:
 * just for the sake or redundancy and clarification the labels on the pots and spray bottles should be color coded to eliminate confusion or accidental switching, which we almost ran into ourselves.
 * what worked well:
 * the map of acid rain and where we were with discussion of why we likely had more acid rain
 * discussion of which plants would be more effected and why
 * concept issues
 * we need to do a better job of tying in what types and why air pollution causes acid rain. sort of connecting the dots from the first exercise with the Big 6


 * Overall, great. I too had issues with the time constraint however after receiving additional help everything went smoother.
 * I was impresses with the reliability to the symbols in on our handout, particularly windmills and how mush they knew.
 * In the future refining the handout to be more clear or more defined, making the sheet more user friendly.

Hyatt T.
 * Albany vs Beijing: this station worked very very well. the student were interested in what they were learning, added to the lesson, and wanted to keep answering questions regarding this issue. I think it made them realize how bad other environments are and how lucky we are to live in a cleaner place.
 * However, the timing was a little too long. By the time we graphed all of the information, we then asked them to compare the results and after that the lesson is over. If there were about 8 mins to complete the exercise, I think it would be a little bit better and the students concentration wouldn't be lost toward the end. Groups 3 and 4 had some trouble concentrating and paying attention. It was good to have to students do hands on stuff because at that age its hard to just talk to them for even just 10 mins

Ryan R.
 * I agree with Hyatt, the activity was great to promote graphing skills and send the message home of how fortunate we are to have good air quality. That being said I think we could have done a better job with the ozone sample bags, especially if they reflected the data that we just plotted. It would have taken the abstract idea of the numbers we just graphed and make them real in a sense.

Kelly D.
 * Since a Cap-and-Trade System is a pretty intricate topic I think in order to really teach them the system and have them be able to articulate what they learned there needed to be more reinforcement. Usually there would be 1-2 kids in each group who really understood what we were getting at, but many others could not articulate after the exercise was over.
 * Attention was also an issue since it was mostly a discussion centered activity, maybe an additional visual could be more helpful.
 * Also took a couple tries to find the perfect "trigger" words that allowed them to better understand the concept
 * In general I think it did get the kids to realize what government has to think about when they make decisions, especially environmental ones

Indira K. Overall: Very successful turnout. Greenhouse gases and global warming connected will with both grades.
 * Introductory Pollution workshop was difficult to grasp for most first graders. Became slightly easier when it was related to car exhaust and fires. Tried to keep asking the students if they knew what the term pollution meant, but it seemed like they still had a hard time grasping it because there are so many examples and sources.
 * Worksheet that accompanied Greenhouse Pollution allowed all students to focus on a small task: filling out the paper. Some students immediately understood where water vapor and carbon monoxide came from, methane and nitrous oxide were unrecognizable to them. Students had a hard time understanding when methane and nitrous oxide came from even after verbally explaining it. I feel like they grasped what I said but they would not be able to reiterate when asked.
 * Worksheet took up the bulk of the time. When group was unfocused, students tended stray from topic. Would have been nice to condense material if possible.
 * Science demonstration was usually rushed due to time contraint and amount of time dedicated to worksheet. The students who were attentive to experiment really understood how global warming works and why its a threat. Younger students who were uninterested found it difficult to grasp the big picture.
 * Students got really excited when asked to help with the experiment. So having a more individualized workshop may have lead to higher successes of understanding.