Analysis of 5E Activity Based on the Three Legs of Science

Weinburgh (2003) notes, The three legs on which science instruction rests are the
content of science, process of science, and the nature of science (p. 29). She goes on to assert,
Each leg performs its own function and need not be competitive with the others (Weinburgh,
2003, p. 29). I tried to keep this in mind as I planned and taught my 5E CoRe lesson on levers
and did my best to balance the three legs. Throughout this paper, I will give an analysis of
how my lesson plan and instruction addressed each leg.
Science Content
Simple machines is the science topic in which my lesson was based, specifically levers.
This science topic falls into the major science area of physical science. The big idea, and what I
wanted students to take away from the lesson, was that simple machines make work easier. I
believe that I accomplished this learning objective with most students and know this to be true
because 14/18, or 78%, of students were able to correctly complete the following sentence stem
in their science journals independently: Simple machines make ______________________.
By using levers that students made I was able to help them see that while they were
previously unable to lift a weight with only their pinky, the implementation of a simple machine
created a mechanical advantage that allowed them to lift the weight. I supplemented this by
showing and explaining diagrams that displayed mechanical advantage. Since there are several
ELL students in my class, and to accommodate various learning styles, I provided students with
multiple modes to take in the material. They could see, touch, and explore with the Lego lever in
front of them, listen to me explain it, or look at the diagram on the projector. The LPS
curriculum split the topic of levers into three separate days of instruction and my lesson was the
first of the three. My CT and I decided that the main goal of my lesson was for students to

understand that simple machines make work easier by creating a mechanical advantage and to be
able to identify levers in the world around them.
I used the Nebraska state science standards and the Lincoln Public Schools (LPS) district
science standards to determine that the content of my lesson was appropriate for third grade
students. The state standards are broad and cover the 3-5 grade band. I believe that the
following standards fit my lesson best: SC5.1.3.b Propose a solution to simple problem and
SC5.1.3.d Implement the proposed solution. At the beginning of the lesson, students were posed
with the problem of lifting the weight using only their pinky. Next, they were able to implement
the use of Legos to create a lever to lift the weight using only their pinky. The LPS standards are
much more specific and standard 3.4.3 states, Students will be able to explain how levers make
work easier. During my lesson, students began to see how levers make work easier and the two
lessons that followed helped them to gain further understanding and experience with levers.
Science Process Skills
Weinburgh (2003) states, Students of all ages should be engaged in doing science and
further explains that in order for children to do science, they must to learn science process
skills (p. 29). I thought that I was giving students many opportunities to use science process
skills, specifically in the way Harlen (2001) describes in Primary Science: Taking the Plunge, by
posing questions that encouraged the use of science process skills (p. 95). For example, in the
engage phase of my lesson, I showed students a video and asked them to identify and record the
levers that they observed in the video. After reflecting on my lesson, I realized that the video
caused students to be passive learners, merely following my directions. They were doing what
they were told and were not participating actively in their learning or developing their own
questions. During the exploration phase, however, students were actually able to do science.

They were given Legos and the freedom to choose a design, create a lever of their own, and lift
the weighted Lego.
Similar to the teacher highlighted in Primary Science: Taking the Plunge, I monitored
students as they worked,asked questions that required them to think critically about the lever
they created, and asked them to respond to one anothers thoughts and ideas using science
process skills (Harlen, 2001, p. 104). Students observed and compared how the placement of the
fulcrum influenced the amount of force required to lift the weighted Lego. They needed to use
scientific reasoning and evidence to explain and defend their thinking. In this way, the level of
necessary student engagement and knowledge were much greater during the explore phase than
the engage phase, even though they used some of the same process skills. Since students created
the levers on their own, they were more motivated to learn about and understand how they work
than when they were identifying them in a video that I made them watch. Harlen (2001) notes,
for learning in science particularly . . . intrinsic motivation is desirable if not essential (p. 16).
I found this assertion to be true in relation to my lesson and noticed that students were more
engaged during the explore phase than they were during the engage phase.
Nature of Science
Fanning and Adams (2015) explain that Nature of Science (NOS) is often considered a
vague term, which can make the concept difficult for teachers to incorporate into classroom
instruction (p. 4). I agree with this statement and, upon reflection of my lesson plan and
instruction, feel that I struggled most to provide my students with the opportunity to learn about
this leg of science compared to the others. Knowing this, I will be more cognizant when
planning future lessons and try to improve the integration of NOS into my instruction.

Weinburgh (2003) hopes that elementary teachers will reflect on lessons that they have taught
in the past or are planning for the future and include the components that are missing (p. 30).
I feel fortunate to have this opportunity to reflect on the lesson and identify changes that I
could make. Looking back, there were times that I could have discussed NOS during my lesson,
but I did not. I think this has a lot to do with my comfort level and understanding of NOS. This
helped me realize that I need to seek further knowledge and understanding so that I am more
confident teaching students. For example, I could have facilitated a discussion with students to
help them understand how playing with Legos relates to science and further explained how
scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence. If I were to teach this lesson again, I would
put more emphasis on data collection and connect it to NOS. Fanning and Adams (2015) discuss
the benefits this can have on student learning and note, Understanding NOS allows students to
gain the self-confidence to defend their ideas with their own data and conclusions instead of
looking to the teacher (p. 10).
I found it somewhat difficult to determine exactly which leg of science many parts of
my lesson plan and instruction addressed because they often blended together and were not
completely clear or separate. I find this to be reassuring because Weinburgh (2003) shares that
Science experiences for elementary students should blend the three legs in such a way that
students learn how to do science, learn specific information about the world around them, and
learn what makes the pursuit of knowledge science (p. 29). In addition, students seemed to
really enjoy using the Legos to do science. One student even said, Legos are my world! I
believe that this in-depth assessment and reflection of my lesson plan will assist me in becoming
more self-aware and purposeful when planning future science lessons.
References

Fanning, L. S. & Adams, K. L. (2015). Teachers toolkit: Bridging the three dimensions
of the NGSS using the nature of science. Science Scope, 39(2), 4-11.
Harlen, W. (2001). Primary science: Taking the plunge. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Kluger-Bell, B. Recognizing Inquiry: Comparing Three Hands-On Teaching Techniques (p.
39-50) (NSF Foundations).
Shiland, T. (1997). Decookbook it. Science and Children, 35(3), 14-18.
Weinburgh, M. (2003). A leg (or three) to stand on. Science and Children, 40(6), 28-30.
Zangori, L., Forbes, C., & Biggers, M. (2012). This is inquiry right. Science and
Children, 50(1), 48-53.