First published in the Spring 2000 issue of Science Activities. 37, (1).

I just used my computer to “dissect” a frog using the award winning Virtual Frog Dissection Kit available on the internet (http://george.lbl.gov/vfrog/).  When I “cut” off the frog’s skin, I see a clean and accurate picture of the skeleton and organs.  By selecting “heart” I can get a close look at this organ, and I can even view it from different angles.  The resolution of the image is almost as good as one would expect from a biology text.  There is also a CD ROM version (http://www.digitalfrog.com).  The publisher of Digital Frog 2, says, “It uses the full spectrum of multimedia technologies--full-motion video, animation, sounds, narration, in-depth text and still images--to bring teaching dissection and anatomy to life.”

Admittedly, the state-of-the-art in frog dissection simulation is impressive, but when I was in junior high we dissected real frogs.  I do not know whether I learned the names of all the bones and organs, but I remember cutting open the stomach hoping to find a fly or some other clue to the frog’s last meal.  I believe my friend, Edward, was very neat at dissecting his frog.  He went on to become a dentist.  Maybe I would have gotten more out of my real frog dissection experience if I could have practiced first on a virtual frog, if such a thing were invented back then.

Real science requires more than simulations and models.  I am reminded of another frog dissection.  In 1780, Italian scientist, Luigi Galvani noticed that a dissected frog leg twitched when touched in just the right place with a scalpel.  Further tinkering with frog legs convinced him that electricity was the cause of the muscle contractions.  Galvani’s accidental discovery started a chain of events that led to the development of the concept of voltage and an understanding of the electrochemical nature of the nervous system.  Serendipity is an important part of science learning, and it is generally absent or, at best contrived, in science simulations.

Few teachers would say, however, that simulation software has no place in science education.  Programs like SimEarth come to mind (Maxis Corporation, http://simcity.ea.com/us/guide/).  Children wield the power to control and manipulate nature.  The idea is that by experimenting with nature children will learn something about atmospheric interactions, ecology, and problems of industrial development.  If we want students to play with Mother Nature on a global scale, simulation is the only way to do it, but we must teach them the underlying assumptions and limitations of simulation software.

What we need is more technology that connects students with reality rather than just simulating reality.  The Texas instruments Calculator Based Laboratory (CBL) system, for example, includes light, voltage, and temperature probes which interface with a graphing calculator (http://education.ti.com/product/tech/cbl2/features/features.html).  A simple experiment is to produce a graph of light intensity vs. temperature.  Students can measure the temperature change as the light source is moved away from the temperature sensor.  The children may want to try placing the temperature sensor on different color paper, first predicting what the effect will be on temperature.

There are Internet projects that allow students to participate in important real science such as the SETI@home project (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu).  As I write this, a computer in my student lab is analyzing data received by the world’s largest radio telescope in Aericebo, Puerto Rico.  This experiment uses the spare power of hundreds of thousands internet connected computers to Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence in Space (SETI).  So far all we have detected is cosmic noise, but it is the dream of real discovery that will motivate students to learn more about the astronomy, mathematics, physics, biology and technology involved in the search.

Often, however, it is the simple, low tech activities that are the most effective in teaching science.  What could be better for learning about simple harmonic motion than a weight swinging a few degrees on the end of a string and a child with a watch?

Science Activities has a history of publishing simple, concrete, and effective experiments that usually do not require expensive computers or laboratory equipment.  This issue is no exception.  “Testing Spaghetti’s Strength, or Lots of Pastabilities” describes how students can use common materials to measure and analyze data about the strength of spaghetti rods in various configurations.  Students will learn first hand about the relationship of strength to span and thickness.

Another activity, “Are You Ready to Take The Plunge?: Create an Amusement Park” has students design and make a model amusement park using simple materials like food containers, scrap wood, coat hangers, etc.  The students use their amusement park to investigate the physics of motion including: friction, gravity, acceleration, kinetic and potential energy, etc.

In “The Light Meter: A Powerful Tool in Physical Science”, students measure air pollution by collecting airborne particles on transparent tape.  Then they use a light meter to measure light passing through the dirty tape compared to an unexposed clean tape.  Although it is unnecessary, a computer spreadsheet program might be helpful in analyzing and graphing data from this activity.

I have not seen the article about the physics of bubbles, but I am looking forward to doing this activity with my children.  I would not be surprised if there were some unexpected learning outcomes that often come from working directly with natural phenomena like bubble formation.

All these activities recognize that young children learn science through concrete experiences.  Computers can help support real world experiences, but they are generally not a good substitute for reality.  Judicious and sensible use of computers and technology can improve science instruction, but spending inordinate amounts of time and money on computers may divert teachers and students from attending to real science.

_________________________________
Dr. Markham B. Schack teaches educational computing and mathematics teaching methods at Morehead State University in Kentucky.  You can contact him at m.schack@morehead-st.edu.

Home