You are on page 1of 3

Puzzles (Part One)

1. (5 min.)Hand out pieces


**work in partners
a.

Talk about Nature of Science


General investigative skills used before.

See what you can make.

2.
Discuss results (5-10 min)
Collaborative then Creative
-How did working in a group help you to find an answer?
-How were you being creative in solving the puzzle?
I have a new piece to give you, but first, lets talk about it
- discuss how thinking will change when I give them new piece
-how will this change your thinking?
-what are you wondering about this now?
3.
a.

Hand out new piece


Here is your new piece of evidence

Curiosity

4.
Time to work
(5-10 min)
Evidence/ Reasoning
-How did the new piece of evidence change your thinking?
-To what extent do you think its like what real scientists have to deal with?

5.
Motivate/ Push small groups
Whole-group bias & frustration
-why do you think your peers might not accept your shape?
-what else could you do (to change your shape)?
6.
Join with another group
(5 minutes)
Cultural, Revisions & Models
Now Im going to have you combine groups, so why dont we split into two groups of
three? Or you guys can keep working over here and then well rotate and switch?
Have each partner group share their final product and explain how they got there.
-How did working with new peers or a new group influence your ideas and choices?
-how did that affect your overall result?
7.

Discuss/share results

(10-15 minutes)

Collaboration & Patterns &


Theory-laden

Questions:
How can we relate this to plate tectonics?
Why do you think I waited to give you the new piece until after the first puzzle
was solved?

To what extent do you think this is like what real scientists do?

Historical Short Story (Part two)


Plate Tectonics
Imagine a picture of the world. What do you see? How do you think it became the way
it looks today? Our Earth and its continents have not always looked the way they do
today. There have been multiple scientists that discover ideas that help explain why the
Earth is formed and looks the way it does today. One of the main components of this is
the exploration and discovery is plate tectonics.
Before scientists had ever heard of plate tectonics, they noticed details about the
different continents and our Earth. In 1620, Francis pointed out the similarities in the
continental outlines of eastern South American and western Africa. They seemed to
almost match up. Antonio agreed with Francis, but believed the similarities were
caused by the continents moving in a biblical flood.
However, neither of these men were able to provide much evidence to back up their
ideas. People accepted that the continent coasts did in fact look similar, but that was
not proving anything.
What role does evidence play in this?
Why do you think scientists decided to explore how the Earth looked?
Alfred W made the same observation as the scientists before him. He proposed that
the continents were once a single land mass called Pangaea and have drifted to the
location we see today over the years. Alfreds idea stuck out a little more because he
was able to use evidence to support it.
One of the main pieces of evidence that Alfred used was fossils. He discovered a fossil
of a small lizard during the Paleozoic Era (270 million years ago) that only appears in
two places on the Earth. The only two locations this fossil is found is in Southern Africa
and eastern South America. The lizard was a freshwater animal and would be
incapable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean.
However, even with that evidence, Alfreds ideas soon became shot down. Other
scientists believed that the continents could not simply plow through the ocean
floor. Although he had evidence of the fossils, he could not come up with an
explanation of how or why the continents had moved away from one another.
How does Alfred use the other scientists ideas to come up with new
observations?
How were the scientists new ideas creative?
Even with evidence, how were the scientists ideas/observations limited?
In 1929, another scientist named Arthur began to explore the same idea that Alfred had
proposed. Arthur championed the theory of continental drift, which was promoted by
Alfred, but there was a problem with the theory. The problem was with how the
continents moved. Because of this problem, Arthur proposed that the Earths mantle
was moved by the heat that was under the Earth.

Because Alfreds ideas were challenged, another scientist, Harry, played a key role in
determining how oceanic mountain ranges were fundamental to the tectonic movement
that resulted in the drift of the continents. During World War II, efforts to map the ocean
floor intensified because of the new U.S. Office of Naval Research. Harry was intrigued
by the new information about the ocean floor, so he started asking questions, especially
the question, why do continents move? Harry supported Alfreds theory of continental
drift and explained how the once-joined continents became the seven that we know
today.
How/Why did the scientists ideas change from the beginning to the end? (trying
to get to something about revision or tentative and how science ideas change
over time)
How were the scientists creative when exploring how the Earth was formed?
How did the new evidence change/influence the scientists past ideas?

You might also like