This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why don't we have more "Kitchen" scientists?
When people hear the word "Science", they often think of fancy labs with high technology equipment, and this is not too far off-- In my Bioelectricity class, for example, we learned about patch clamp experiments, which use tiny electrical recorders called micropipettes to record electrical currents from single ion channels in cells, and the voltage clamp experiments performed by Hodgkin and Huxley, in which they managed to thread wires through a single axon! These experiments, and a lot of other important experiments outside this field, require a lot of expensive machinery, chemicals and facilities. But does science always have to be a luxury? For example, instead of using expensive fish-eye lens for photography experiment, we could simply buy a much cheaper door viewer to get the same barrel distortion effect. Or you can go online and buy kits to record from brains, or if you live in New York City, you can join the community laboratory called GenSpace, take workshops, trainings, or can work on our own projects!
How do you think we can help science become more accessible to everyone? The more people, both amateur and professional, who contribute to science, the more ideas will be created!
Closing Statement from Yu-An Chen
Thank you all for the comments and suggestions. I got to know a lot of new resources by going through the comments. It seems like most people will be glad to see more kitchen scientists. We can start with turning off TV and explore more about the world. Science is all around us, if one has the heart, anyone can become a kitchen scientist.
Reilus Heliodromus
Mister Wizard disappeared and we had Bill Nye the Science Guy. I preferred Mister Wizard; he made me curious. We could bring shows like that back. We could make the discovery channel like it used to be rather than this nonsense that changes the camera's focus, picture, and content every 5-9 seconds like I'm undergoing the Ludovico treatment from Clockwork Orange sans the good music.
I know these small changes would not solve all our problems, but I am not here to post about pennies from heaven. These are simple things we can do now that will make the situation better. We need to encourage exploration and scientific breakthroughs because these are the only advances that seem to make human life better. We would also do well to see what we can do for life, generally -- in my opinion, but that is another post.
Mary M. 50+
We learn first hand what happens when a small child is fascinated with nature and ocean life.
Here is the link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_degruy_hooked_by_octopus.html
Yu-An, anyway to add Mike's talk to your "related talks" so that this conversation can be seen by those who watch the Mike DeGruy talk....and maybe contribute more to your conversation.....also can you extend your conversation time??
Just a thought. Be Well.
Comment deleted
Emily Lakdawalla
Mary M. 50+
Thank you Emily
Comment deleted
Mary M. 50+
Mary M. 50+
This takes planning, and it has to be organized by outgoing personality types who really enjoy science. But I think it could work.
I think some have made a valid point in saying that technology has affected kids, and adults view of kitchen science....this is very sad.
However, I still know dedicated science teachers who are trying their best to keep science alive and well....so let's be optimistic.
I hope to see a GenSpace down in our neck of the woods soon!!!!
Joanna Cruz
There is an organization that accomplishes your hopes called Iridescent Learning. Its vision is “to use science, technology and engineering to develop persistent curiosity and to show that knowledge is empowering.” Iridescent has a Family Science Program in which children from the same school along with their parents and siblings go to Iridescent science studios for science lessons and experiments one night a week for 4 weeks. These 4 lessons are part of a cohesive unit that demonstrates the important principles of a science application like the physics behind sailing. Each lesson has demo and design portions to concretely demonstrate the principles. These lessons are taught by engineers and engineering students through an Engineers as Teachers program. I had the pleasure of participating in Iridescent’s Engineers as Teachers program affiliated with my college. Not only are the children learning and hopefully becoming more curious and interested in science, but the engineering student-teachers renew their interest in science and see how their knowledge and expertise can benefit children that could potentially follow in their footsteps.
Iridescent has locations in California and New York. Hopefully, it will expand to many other states and other universities.
http://iridescentlearning.org/
Mary M. 50+
I watched the videos of interviews with the engineering students and how they are trained to go into the upper elemetary grades and middle schools to show kids complex science in simple ways.
How much fun was being had by all....kids, parents and engineering students!!!
It is a win win win win situation. The young students win because they are able to have positive role models teach them that science is fun......the teachers in the schools win because they can imitate the methods later on with other students.....the university students win because they learn communication and leadership skills......and the parents and society as a whole wins because we will continue to foster a love of science in our future generations.
THANK YOU seems too simple of an expression, but really thank you for sharing Joanna.
It would be great if the University of Miami did something like this here in South Florida. Maybe I will email somebody over there and send them this link. HMM
Thank you. Mary
Josh Mayourian 50+
I had a lot of experience in labs from a young age until I graduated from High School. However, I don't believe that lab experience alone is what can help young students more interested, even if parents were to get involved. Many of the experiments for young children involves following a specific procedure. There was no thought involved, and that wasn't enjoyable for me.
I currently am in college, and have lab experience that has finally made me interested. In my Organic Chemistry lab course, we are required to find unknown compounds using any methods we have learned. This lets us have fun trying different things on our own, without following an exact procedure made by someone else. We have the freedom to choose how we want to approach the problem, rather than having the answer handed to us.
This idea can be used for young children with moderation, making sure safe procedures are used with a high level of supervision. Children would be able to think more, and be extremely satisfied if they were to complete a challenge in the lab using their own methods. They can do their own research to see how to approach the lab, as long as they receive approval from the teacher.
Josh
Mary M. 50+
I have used the "do your own method"...for example, with the post I wrote about the making of boats.....and it is nice to see the different approaches students take.
Control is a big issue in elementary, as kids are very immature and some activities can get out of hand, plus, there is hardly any background knowledge on subjects so it is a bit of a challenge.
It would be interesting to use your university's approach every once in a while.
Thank you for sharing your experience.
Mary
Uche Onuoha
Mary M. 50+
Thank you for your reply.
Linda Taylor 50+
I think you might get your wish.
http://www.motorestaurant.com/about/
Mary M. 50+
Alex Trottier
That and the whole "economic turmoil" thing makes it difficult to get things done even when you do have the drive...I can think of tons of projects I'd love to work on if only I didn't have to work on not starving.
Mary M. 50+
Andrew Kiang 50+
I believe the main component to creating “kitchen” scientists is the impression of strong memories that scientific experiments and learning from them are fun and engaging. These memories need to be strong enough trigger self-motivation. Perhaps even teens and adults can be converted to “kitchen” scientists if they experience something cool and impactful enough.
Mary M. 50+
How true Andrew...this quote from your mentioned article is pretty much what all of us commenting on this topic have found.
I will add to your wonderful comment that life, life that is lived surrounded by nature, provides the best lab in the world.
Sitting in an apartment, on the 12th floor of a high rise, watching tv while playing on a DS and listening to music on an i-pod and texting your friends, will not the next scientist make.
Of course, I could be wrong.....but I don't think so.
That is why I posted my last comment a few minutes ago linking the Mike DeGruy talk on "Hooked by an Octopus"....Mike starts the talk explaining how, at the age of five, growing up in Mobile, Alabama was all the incentive he needed to become a marine zoologist.
Thank you Andrew for the link and the wonderful thoughts. Are you studying science???
And please, if you get the chance, visit the site JoAnne Cruz linked me to below in her comment.......it shows how young engineer students are making a difference right now through this great program out in California. You will probably enjoy the great videos showing all that goes on out there. It is a must see!!!
Be Well, Mary
Andrew Leader 50+
I think one thing that prevents many would-be tinkerers from engaging in kitchen science is that a lot of technology seems to have reached a level of abstraction such that it is impossible for they layman to understand what is going on under the hood. For example, 20 years ago you could fix your own car in your garage. Now, your car has a computer which you need fancy equipment just access. Before, you could fix your transistor radio if you knew anything about circuits and had some time on your hands. Now, you break open the outer case and see an embedded computer.
Unfortunately, it seems that the popular types of "kitchen science" which have survived are now trite: demonstrations of principles from basic mechanics, Newton's cradle, mixing vinegar and baking soda.
Perhaps it sounds overly pessimistic, but I do believe we have reached a level of technological sophistication as a society where, in order to make big discoveries, you need at least some measurable amount of capital invested into your project, particularly in terms of education, equipment, and time. In light of this, I'm a big proponent of taking scientific perspectives on everyday activities. Cooking and gardening are two great examples. There's a well established movement of chefs working new science-inspired techniques into their cooking, and new gardening methods are developed all the time.
I love food in particular, and I tend to break food preparation up into two sections: From the sun's energy to the grocery store, and from the grocery store to the plate. For the former, I suggest the books of Michael Pollan, and for the latter, check out Cooking for Geeks. Michael Pollan also writes fantastically about gardening and botany in general.
Nick Annon
As a post note, killing your tv will undoubtedly help reduce the amount of irrelevant information, even if you don't have one in your kitchen.
Corey Webster
Indeed, the very notion that great science must be both expensive and selective, as far as who gets to do the science or receives the funding, is one that comes only from within the institutions that create those limits. It is far more likely, however, that someone will be able to 'think outside of the box' if they are actually outside of the box.
Well funded labs think: If I have the funds to spend on my experiments, then the most expensive experiments will get me the best data or highest impact publication, therefore, I must use the "top of the line" equipment and reagents. This is flawed thinking because often "top of the line" really does not yield the most elegant or revolutionary results, just the most expensive. Someone without institution funds will be more creative in re-engineering equipment (Backyard Brains founders come to mind) and reagents to meet their specific needs, or think very deeply about the best questions to ask, and the optimal experiment that can answer that question. The end result: more money does not equal better science, actually, it may even inhibit the scientific creative spirit. But, I'm definitely happy to purchase some $800 digital pipets from ebay for $50 because the scientists at Pfizer couldn't figure out how to replace the batteries.
Mary M. 50+
Corey Webster
Science has always been about discovering the unexpected. Kitchen scientists, DIY biologists, citizen scientists ARE the unexpected. I am very excited to find out what paradigm shifting discoveries may be fermenting in someones kitchen sink or glowing in their garage laser microscope. Based on the history of science, I would be willing to bet that those breakthrough treatments are more likely to come from such a lab than a large biotech or endowed academic lab.
Mary M. 50+
Oliver Medvedik 50+
And also for Dr. Bruce Merrifield, the Rockefeller Institute chemist who had to build a lab in his basement in order to build his revolutionary and later Nobel prize winning solid state peptide synthesizer.
Ah, bureaucracy, just the sort of situations we set out to avoid at Genspace so we could all just get down to the science! Anyway, if you can tell, I'm pretty passionate about having as much open access to science and technology as possible! And, in my opinion, having the right environment is key to accomplishing this.
Oliver Medvedik 50+
Interestingly, having access to adequate space to even do groundbreaking research, even for established scientists, has always been a major problem. You would think that someone with academic affiliations or working in a well funded biotech company wouldn't have these problems, but that isn't the case. Especially if you have a new direction or idea that you want to pursue.
Dick Morel
Mary M. 50+
Alexis Abbott
For me what was lacking in school was defined relevance. "I like art and writing, I don't need to know geometry." Here I am ten years later building 3D models where graphing, angles, multiplier modifiers and polygonal topology are hugely relevant to what I'm doing. I've often thought I would be a better artist if I was better at math.
Vihart on Youtube and Khan Academy have really helped me out lately in learning concepts and seeing math "visually" versus simply numbers on a piece of paper. These sorts of on the fly resources weren't available when I was in school. I hope kids are capitalizing on them now; I know I sure am.
Hobbyist science is growing exponentially and I think the only thing really lacking is access to equipment and materials. Imagine what could be accomplished if independent students had even a quarter of the equipment of a traditional University?
Thanks for posting about other resources everyone! I know what I'm doing this week. :)
Uche Onuoha
Mary M. 50+
We have even tried our hand at rock candy using sugared water, a jar and a string.....lots of fun!!!
Keith Olson
Mary M. 50+
So simple.
[Edited misspellings]
Tom Klein
If you have many hands it will be light work.
Many times different areas or fields of expertise are needed.
What may be very difficult for you,will be easy for someone else.
I would like to form a club or organization to do this.
I have a small machine shop and I am volunteering my services.
Looking for people with ideas and some answers.
Tom Klein
Milwaukee Wisconsin
TMKlein123@ Yahoo.com
I live in Milwaukee Wisconsin
Mario P.
Stephanie Schiffman-Marushia
Comment deleted
Andrew Tam
You are absolutely right - in this day and age, people just don't have the push for curiosity any more. With television and all sorts of other electronics at our fingertips, we see no need to try to be creative or curious about anything; it is just so easy to flip on the television or computer and kill a couple of hours.
In the past, before all of this technology was around, I imagine people were much more active, both physically and mentally. They didn't have any modern technologies to waste their time with, so they had to be creative.
Since we see what is happening, it is in our power to turn things around. I have a younger brother and I hate that he comes home from school and just watches TV (at least he finishes his homework first). I make an effort to play with him or do what I can to keep him off the electronics. I haven't been too good about promoting kitchen science, but at least I am getting him off of the tv a little bit. As much as these kids like watching tv, they actually are really curious about things. All it takes is a simple experiment or idea to spark something in them, and you've got the ball rolling. Even just having them play with toys might keep their mind more active than if they were watching tv.
As for jobs, you are right: finding a job where they can do what they love is difficult, and may at times feel impossible. Sometimes we get lucky, and other times we have to compromise, but regardless, the people that pursue their passions do seem to be happier.
Yu-An Chen 50+
good job on keeping your brother away from the TV. It is a great start for your brother to do something more productive. Perhaps you should show him some of your area of expertise for inspiration. As for job, I feel people don't do what they love most of the time. But perhaps we can incorporate what we love into the our jobs. Its difficult, but it will inspire some creativity. For example, I work in an office and my job include checking any typo in mailing list, I am thinking writing a program that can do the job for me. It is an example of incorporating what I love(programming) into my job.
Nolan Poe
No offense, but this is not true. I'm on the internet, procrastinating. I should be doing my physics homework. So does that mean I'm not curious? No, it doesn't. It means I'm spending my time doing something more productive than homework. For instance, in 6th grade, I taught myself programming, to the detriment of my schoolwork. I'm surprised people are taking this view here, of all places. When i'm bored, I browse wikipedia and read articles. I just read them, not for reference, just reading. Know why? (it involves curiosity, and the reason isn't that I lack it).
I guess the original was too angry. I'm the kind of person you're talking about when you say people are too lazy. What you don't realize is that's what EVERYBODY thinks about the next generation. It's like my grandparents saying that my parents' generation had no morals because they listened to rock'n'roll.
EDIT, responding to comments responding to me, because ted doesn't let us nest comments past 3 levels:
I suppose what you're saying is true, but my parents didn't do anything special to me to make me how I am. Humans are naturally curious. Just because TV is stimulating and satisfies that curiosity for a short time doesn't mean it's bad or should be avoided to encourage creativity and curiosity.
Veronica Shalotenko 50+
I actually think that your ideas are not as radically different from those in the previous comments as might appear at first glance. To use the Internet as an educational tool (as you have done) requires a level of maturity that many people do not reach during their time in school. You seem to be describing the mature, educated Internet user, while many of the previous commenters are talking about young, impressionable children. Is it reasonable to expect, say, a second-grader to use technology in a productive manner? In an article that I came across in Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/635134.html), I read that children today spend an average of four and a half hours in front of the television. I would guess that the majority of these children are blindly consuming television programs rather than actively engaging with the content to which they are exposed. While children may learn something from the television, I’m not so sure that the passive consumption of televised programming encourages creative thinking. Now, suppose a child does not learn to think creatively: can we really expect him or her to show any interest in the sciences?
Mary M. 50+
Science is very exciting and I find flexibility is necessary to approach learning since there are many different types of learners.
Claude makes a good point though....what do you do with the knowledge you accumulate?
Thanks. Mary
Jude Blackwell
It seems like the things we learn when we're kids have a greater proportional effect than the things we do when we're older, and this makes sense, naturally, since there are fewer things in there for them to compete with! It's SO important for kids to really observe, help others do things, and do stuff for themselves. It makes me cringe to think of all the time many children spend glued to electronics, and of course they learn things there too, but they need to spend a lot more time in the real world learning things.
Dennis Pack
Allan Macdougall 30+
I'm looking to go as much 'off grid' as I possibly can in my electricity consumption, and will probably build my own permanent magnet generators to help, via batteries and an inverter, with low-power appliances, such as LED lighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_magnet_synchronous_generator
Christophe Cop 500+
http://www.yourdiscovery.com/science/kitchen_chemistry/
Other than that: hackerspaces and Igem are some great leads...
Gregory Gage 100+
I helped start Backyard Brains with my labmate Tim while at the University. When we first started, the only way to record the “spikes” of brains was to purchase expensive lab equipment costing $10,000-$40,000. Now you can do the same for less than $50 using the same ideas you mentioned, keeping things cheap and easy (sewing needles for electrodes, for example).
Keep hacking... and keep sharing your hacks!
Yu-An Chen 50+
Maria Georgescu 50+
Although it is optimistic and an end-goal to foster a society filled with people who have the curiosity to ask questions and innovate, the fact also is that science is a profession. A researcher should hopefully be passionate about their work, but they do need that large company or organization funding their next paycheck. In quite a few fields, the science has reached a point where the expensive technology is a must, simply because a new level of discovery has been reached. For example, in a class one can learn to build a simple transistor, but when moving toward innovation in that particular field, the focus suddenly shifts toward the nanoscale (which necessitates advanced pieces of equipment).
Matthew Wieder 50+
What you say is very true. Especially in the biological sciences the expense of the equipment can be extremely prohibitive. However, beyond just inexpensive alternatives, we can find more creative uses for some of the technologies we already carry in our pockets. Smartphones and their respective applications could facilitate a new wave of kitchen science. While reading your comment I thought about the possibility of using a phone as a spectrophotometer, so I googled it and low and behold someone already figured out how to do it. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/10/in-high-school-chem-labs-every-camera-phone-can-be-a-spectrometer/
I'm sure more creative ways to use smartphones can be found or created for the next generation of smartphones to bring as many experimental instruments as possible to the individual scientist's fingertips.
Ariel Habshush 50+
I completely agree with you. For my senior project, I am currently working on a prototype neural prosthetic. My school has allotted $1,000 towards this project; however, my partner and have only spent around $50 these past 6 months. We minimize our costs by making our own hardware and recording materials. For example, we have been using hook wire electrodes in order to get recordings from the animasl we are experimenting on. These electrodes cost around $10 each and we use 4 electrodes per recording. So far we have done 6 recording. If we were to use new electrodes for each recording that would total $240. Instead, we re-thread the wire back into the cannula after each recording, allowing us to reuse the electrodes and not have to worry about our budget.
Jude Blackwell
One thing that would help would be more books about how to do this kind of stuff. Hint, hint!
Limit TV & computer time, answer questions with experiments instead of words when you can, and write books. That's my suggestion.
Sophie Rand 50+
i think its a great idea to answer questions more in depth by actually investigating-- it seems like this is the most powerful way of really learning! You know how there are always those kids who seem to have a really good intuition for physics, or probability, or logic? I think those were the kids who probably got someone to explain something to them when they were younger, helping root ideas into their minds which would be helpful later on. The explanation doesn't even need to be an answer-- sometimes just observing carefully is enough to spark the wheels turning in your brain to try and figure out, say, why a swing works.
Howard Yee 50+
What I think probably happens is that parents and/or the education system isn't nurturing these intuitive assumptions. Instead, kids are always told to stop being nosy or noisy, and that causes them to shy away developing these intuition into real knowledge; then they're thrown into an unnatural learning environment, causing them to learn "the right way".
Yu-An Chen 50+
Steven Nikolidakis 50+
Harnsowl Ko 50+
You're right, laziness does play a big role in why we might not have the same number of "kitchen scientists" However, at the same time, we also happen to live in world filled with "glitz and glam." I feel that the idea of a scientist still evokes the image of nerd in a white coat. Granted, sites like TED have slowly started to break that down, but that image is still there. I think the key to inspiring kitchen scientists is to breed creativity. It should be creativity that is celebrated and encouraged. At a young age, children should be given the ability to expand their minds and pursue questions that they may have. It is important to stimulate their feel for questioning and creativity. Whether or not that can be done in such a mind numbingly digital age remains to be seen.
Julia Grotenhuis
Actually, one reason why I often feel disconnected from science is because I feel it isn't as accessible as other subjects. You don't need fancy equipment to really dive into literature or history or math, but for science? ... Or so I thought. Now that you mention it, I wonder why we do not have more "kitchen" scientists, especially in the education system. ^^ Maybe this idea is simply not well known enough yet. Otherwise, I see no reason why we couldn't have more "kitchen scientists".
Dennis Pack
Students achieved over 90% on their science TAKS tests .... state average was in the 70s.
Mary M. 50+
Why??? because kids get loud and excited and MESSY during science labs...they don't want to deal with classroom discipline and untidiness....BUT IT'S SUPPOSED to be exciting, and yes kids get out of control, but that passes once they see that calm is needed to proceed. Some teachers just don't get it. They sacrifice discovery for a safe haven of orderliness. oy
It is very very sad. Science is so much fun.....and it DOES NOT have to be expensive.
I hope some science teachers read through this conversation thread.
It's nice to know there are teachers like you Mr. Pack.
Dennis Pack
Science is everywhere ... all you have to do as a teacher is connect what you want kids to learn with what's around them in their world. I always told the kids that I liked teaching science because they already knew everything ... it was just my job to connect their life to what they needed to "know" for some other power to be.
Now Mary, stop calling me Mr. Pack ... I don't need to be reminded how old I am! ;-)
And it's equally nice to hear of all those who "practice" science with their students ... instead of spoon feeding "facts".
Mary M. 50+
The mediocre teacher tells,
The good one explains,
The superior one shows,
The great one inspires!
To you and your great teaching skills Dennis Pack!!! Cheers!!
[Edited spelling]
Yu-An Chen 50+
Dennis Pack
Nothing beats self-motivation ... Always told parents "I can't teach you son/daughter anything if they don't want to learn" ... my job? Get them excited and interested ... then, learning just happens.
Mary M. 50+
Maybe raffling off an ipod at science lab events would attract a crowd???
A few years back our city library got a grant to have two science teachers come every Saturday and perform experiments. I remember they tackled force and motion and simple machines....both extremely practical science topics and very hands on. We loved it!!!
Regardless of how much promotion was done, noone, except for a handful of parents with their kids, showed up to the wonderful 1/2 day workshops.
It would be really neat if South Florida had a community laboratory. What fun!!!
I do kitchen science with my kids. Here's a simple experiment to show how water molecules bond.
Take a penny, a dropper, and a glass of water. Ask the child, or adult to guess (hypothesis) how many drops will it take for the water to start to roll of the top of the penny. Record the hypothesis. Then proceed to drop water carefully on the penny....the look of surprise on the participants faces is always the same....shock!!!
Great topic of conversation Yu-An
Dionne Lutz
I agree that many people are either 'afraid' or 'bored' with science - as a former science teacher, engaging my students was my biggest hurdle in the classroom. When I was in elementary school, we learned mostly through the textbook or the teacher lecturing to us; hands on engaging learning was a luxury. In college, we were instructed to teach by inquiry in project-based education. However, as teachers in the classroom, there were so many standards to reach and other smaller intangibles that made inquiry based learning difficult to master.
I believe the best way to combat this fear is to engage kids when they are young - by instilling the 'Why' bug early. Then they are more likely to ask questions and discover answers when they are older.
A wonderful simple 'kitchen' experiment to open conversation with young children about electricity requires a lemon, a clean dime and a clean penny. Roll the lemon on the counter to release some of the juice. Make 2 small incisions in the rind about 1/2 inch apart. Insert the coins in each incision. Touch the two coins to your tongue (why these coins should be clean) and describe your observations.
Mary M. 50+
It takes alot of devotion to do at least one science experiment per week with students. Kitchen science done using ideas found on the web is a great solution to this challenge. I used to have big discussions with my administrator about science....you simply cannot be an effective teacher teaching science out of a textbook alone. You need to have time to conduct experiments and get your hands dirty..... Science is supposed to be hands-on.
You said: "the best way to combat this fear is to engage kids when they are young - by instilling the 'Why' bug early"
I will reply, that you do not need to instill the 'Why' bug early......if you are a parent, you know that children are born with the 'why' bug......why is the sky blue?, why do you have to cut my nails? why can't I look at the sun?.....and so on.
It is maintaining the bug active that is the SECRET......many parents give the bug anti-biotics, and squash it in it's infancy. They don't want to be bothered with annoying questions.........well, guess what? Those annoying questions are what make children love inquiry and later love school, and science.
We discussed the topic recently on TED: Is there such thing as a stupid question?.....coming out of children's mouths, all question deserve an answer.
I am sure that I am preaching to the choir here, but I just wanted to expand on your comment.
BTW.....I did your experiment......however, nothing happened. Is it because I used a green lime instead of a lemon???? I'm curious?
My kids think I'm crazy....but I don't think so. Let me know, and thanks for the reply.
I hope I didn't ramble. I enjoy talking about education, children, science...in no particular order.
Dionne Lutz
If only I had parents like you when I was teaching! I agree - it is not only the role of the educator, but the parents and community to instill the most in every child. It's a shame what happens to children when there is a piece of the support triangle missing.
Regarding the experiment - I never tried it with a lime. There is a pH difference between lemons and limes (the pH scale being logarithmic, it's more like a factor of 10). Additionally, the metal alloys in coins are somewhat variable depending on the year they were minted. Perhaps using zinc and copper plates or household hardware would be better electrodes. Here's a link that may provide additional supplementary information.
http://hilaroad.com/camp/projects/lemon/lemon_battery.html
Good luck! (and keep me posted - I'll see what if I can't scrounge up some more labs)
Dennis Pack
Mary M. 50+
I remember my 10th grade chemistry teacher....she was actually the PE teacher, and taught Chemistry as well......or I should say, she lectured out of the textbook.
I always hated science....b o r i n g.....until I started my career as an educator. When I realized that my students where bored with the way I was teaching....same as I was taught, I had to change my routine. Doing labs once a week and lots of discussions back and forth on science topics made this subject the most enjoyable of the week.......next to Math.....which I also enjoy teaching.
And anytime you include edibles in science.....well, let's just say that the kids go wild.
There is a book called "Who Sank the Boat". It's a children's book, and it's great for opening a lab on surface tension and what kinds of boat shapes hold the most weight. After I read the book to the kids, I would pass out paper and have them make paper boats...any shape....they could use tape to put it together....then, each child would put their boat in a tub of water and slowly put pennies one by one on the boats....until the boat sank. Afterwards we would discuss which shape boat held the most pennies. Their estimates of the # of pennies their boats would hold are always way off.....that's half the fun....oh the discovery!!!!
Great class lab.....we had tons of fun doing it.
Nicolette Sinensky 50+
We end up putting too much stock in credentials and forget that anybody can contribute to the scientific community, no matter their background.
Mary M. 50+
There is a wonderful scholastics biography set for young people that I have always used in my second grade classes. I use them exclusively to show children that all that one needs to be a scientist, inventor, or just someone who makes a difference in the world, is one's imagination.
Two of my favorites are: The Story of George Washington Carver ISBN 0-590-42660-5
and Louis Braille The Boy Who Invented Books for the Blind ISBN 0-590-44350-X
These two books have sparked student's love of learning, discovering and inventing......The Louis Braille book even comes with the Braille alphabet on the back.
How sad that science is reduced to PHD's and degrees and the like...hopefully, individuals whose parents instill in them a love of discovery, or who are exposed to teachers who are passionate about science, will continue to make scientific discoveries in their kitchens, garages, and backyards.
Thanks for your reply and insights Nicolette.