Jim Cain

Curriculum Overview Lesson Reflection

For the curriculum overview presentation I focused on scientific
concepts relating to evaporation and condensation of matter along with the
effect of unbalanced pressures. My peers were provided with a handout to
record their intuitions and observations throughout the experiment and the
discussions surrounding it. The attention grabber was to display the
experiment immediately to my peers, it was effective in demonstrating
interest and letting them know what the lesson was about and what they
would be learning about.
The experiment consisted of a heating element, an ice bath, an empty
soda can with a small amount of water in it, and some tongs. The
experiments starts with boiling the water in the can, causing the vapor to
displace the air in the can. The can is then plunged into the ice bath, it is
inverted so that the water causes a seal on the mouth of the can. The can
rapidly collapses due to the condensation of the vapor in the can. To be
specific the vapor condenses the pressure inside the can drops substantially
below atmospheric pressure, causing the can to crumple.
At this point it was suggested that I delve more into background
information in order to clarify the importance of the observed phenomenon.
A variety of real world applications that signify the importance could be
explored at this point. One relevant example would be the effect that
weather has on the pressure inside car tires; the operation of heat pumps
also rely condensation and evaporation at varying pressures; historical
examples such as steam engines could also be drawn upon. Overall I feel
that this was an excellent suggestion, and one that is easily incorporated into
the lesson.
A discussion was started after the initial demonstration to assess prior
knowledge and to develop a feel for the intuitive capabilities of my peers.
The discussion time was budgeted appropriately in the lesson plan. I avoided
giving out any information beyond that which was included on the handout
sheet. Theories and discussions were largely driven by my peers, only
guiding questions were posed to provoke inquiry along the correct path. The
questions which were discussed under the initial learning activity were:

What happens to the volume of a material as it evaporates?

What happens to the volume of a material occupies as it condensates?

These questions were appropriate to guide understanding of the initial phase
of the learning activity.
The experiment was then performed again. The scope of
understanding was further inquired upon by prompting my peers to come to

Jim Cain

a conclusion of the vapor and air content ratio of the can during the process.
They correctly inferred that the vapor that can be seen exiting the can after
the contents began to boil was displacing the air in the can. I did not ask the
question outlined in my lesson plan template:

What physical cues indicate that the container is full of water vapor?

I determined that that it is leading question. Instead I asked my peers to

theorize as to what was happening inside the can. With a little prompting
they inferred that the air was being expelled and replaced with vapor.
The final phase of the experiment required the most discussion, I
focused primarily on the force that caused the can to be crushed. There was
some genuine confusion or dumbfoundedness as to what caused the
observed effect. I budgeted more time for the end of the demonstration,
however I was unable to address the other two questions, which I deemed to
be of lesser importance.

How did your theories match observations?

How did they differ?

In order to come to a conclusion as the implosion of the can it was
necessary to prompt my peers to do a complete walkthrough through the
physical processes leading up to the final collapse. Inquiring about the gas
volumes and asking about what they thought the pressures inside the can
were at each step lead the group to the correct conclusion. This merged the
consolidation of learning step with learning activity #3.
I received excellent feedback from my group. All group member found the
demonstration engaging and purposeful. It was also reported that the
physical presentation made theoretical concepts much easier to
comprehend. The handout was noted as being clear and colorful. The line of
questioning was also found to be engaging and appropriate. Lastly it was
suggested that the lesson was appropriately stepped to encourage
understanding.
Some very useful improvement feedback was also supplied. The most
important bit of feedback was the suggestion to include additional
background information, which was discussed above. It was suggested that I
could come up with a more substantial sponge activity, to which I fully agree.
I am unsure about what exactly to use though, perhaps a short bit of
historical perspective, or relevant background information could be provided.
It was also suggested that allowing the students to handle the apparatus
could provide further engagement, this is true, however further safeguards
would have to be implemented when working around steam.

Jim Cain

After the presentation I reflected on a few other aspects that would add
difficulty. Performing this experiment with a larger class would make the
assessment a lot harder. It is easy to see that a small group is comfortable
with the concepts, and to know when to move on to the next step, however
in a larger group it would be more difficult to spot the students who are
simply going with the flow. In order to combat this a more substantial
handout should be created, to allow easy spot checks, or peer assessment
(at the cost of time).
Overall I was very happy with the level of engagement and the level of
understanding that was displayed. The concrete demonstration made
stepping through the abstract ideas involved substantially more intuitive to
the learner (in their words). While I cant substantiate it, I think that the
fundamental concepts presented in the lesson will have much more longevity
in the learner versus simply presenting theory.