Review Tibor Basletić Požar Team Croatia

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Carrying Out an Investigation in Science
Advertisements

Scientific Method.
Desert Survivors Goal Setting.
The Scientific Method Mrs. Gergel.
The Scientific Method.
Warm-up  List 10 lab safety rules. Do you have the proper heading on your paper? REMEMBER: You will keep this paper ALL week. Put it somewhere you won’t.
What is Science SCIENCE: Is using evidence to learn about the natural world The Goal of Science 1.) Deals only with the natural world 2.) To collect and.
/6. DISAPPEARING INK Reviewer: Matija Martinčić Team Croatia.
Introduction to Biology and Homeostasis Section 2 Scientific Processes Biology Fall 2010.
The Scientific Method? What’s it all about? It’s a process which outlines a series of steps used to answer questions. In other words, it’s a way to solve.
Scientific Processes Mrs. Parnell. What is Science? The goal of science is to investigate and understand the natural world, to explain events in the natural.
Bell Ringer  1. What is science and how is it related to technology?  2. List 3 forms of technology used in your home and describe how tasks were completed.
Describe Your Big Question What are you investigating? Why did you choose this topic? What did you expect the outcome to be? See
Bell Ringer  1. What is science and how is it related to technology?  2. List 3 forms of technology used in your home and describe how tasks were completed.
Scientific Method 1-2: Pgs IN: What steps of the scientific method did Cain practice using when he built his arcade?
Unit 1 Lesson 1 How Do Scientists Investigate Questions? Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Talent 21 Acid Rain Experiment Your Name: josef Davidson Group Members: durron,Hanna, alec Period: 5.
Your Name: Rodgerick Mccoullum Group Members: Howard Nash, Erin Findeson, Justin Figurouea Period:9th.
Scientific Method Review.  The scientific method is used by scientists to solve problems  It is organized and reproducible (can be repeated by other.
1.2 Using a Scientific Approach You are caught in the rain. Should you run or walk? Maybe you should run–less time in the rain means less water falls down.
Survey Project 1.As a group – pick a topic you find interesting 2.Create a hypothesis you want to test with your survey. 3.Create 10 questions to ask your.
Notes 1.2 THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Steps to the Scientific Method Make observations – Come up with a problem Make observations – Come up with a problem.
Chapter 1 Section 2. A. Scientific Method a. An organized plan for gathering, organizing, and communicating information b. The goal of any scientific.
1-2 Scientific Inquiry How do scientists investigate the natural world? What role do models, theories, and laws play in science?
Chapter 1 Section 2. A. Scientific Method a. An organized plan for gathering, organizing, and communicating information b. The goal of any scientific.
Quietly get supplies and have a seat Supplies Pencil Science notebook open to homework Colored pen or pencil Scissors.
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY CHAPTER 1 SECTION 2 PHYSICAL SCIENCE.
The Scientific Method You Should Take Notes .
Chapter 1, Section 2 Answers to review for worksheet pages
Distinguish between an experiment and other types of scientific investigations where variables are not controlled,
You are caught in the rain. Should you run or walk
The Scientific Method.
Scientific Method The scientific method is a guide to problem solving. It involves asking questions, making observations, and trying to figure out things.
Scientific Method.
What is the Scientific Method?
7. Scientific Method- = The systematic approach to problem solving that involves observation and experimentation.
PROBLEM NO.6 REVIEWER Team China Taking the stage: Zheng Luxiao.
Chapter 1: The World of Physical Science
Preoperational children fail conservation tasks because of
Science Skills Biology 11.
Scientific Method.
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY Life Science 1.3 Mrs. Senese.
Problem №5 Tempest In Water
Opposition - Klara Stojčević Team Croatia
Opposition: Tibor Basletić Požar Team Croatia
PROBLEM NO.22 REVIEWER Team China Taking the stage: Cai Kangjia.
Opponent: Mate Sharvadze Team :Georgians
Darya Ananyeva Voronezh-2
Scientific Method Integrated Sciences.
Induction and deduction are used together in research reasoning
You are caught in the rain. Should you run or walk
Theory Vs. Law.
Falling ball IYNT Review Luka bulić bračulj.
Scientific Methods The goal of any scientific method is to solve a problem or to better understand an observed event.
Unit 1 Scientific Inquiry
The Scientific Method.
Opposition 11. Grow light Opponent: Maria Krasnova Team of Belarus.
The Scientific Method.
You are caught in the rain. Should you run or walk
Scientific Inquiry.
Team Investigation Activity using National Geographic online
You are caught in the rain. Should you run or walk
Carrying Out an Investigation in Science
You are caught in the rain. Should you run or walk
Section 1.3 Scientific Processes.
The Scientific Method.
Problem №2 «All roads lead to Rome»
Review to the problem №22 «Montgolfiere»
You are caught in the rain. Should you run or walk
Proposal cannot actually be implemented as written.
Presentation transcript:

Review Tibor Basletić Požar Team Croatia Starch monsters Review Tibor Basletić Požar Team Croatia

The problem A water suspension of starch is placed on a loudspeaker. Investigate and describe the resulting starch monsters.

The Reporter Plenty of experiments Good Not very good  Plenty of experiments The phenomenom was explained, concluding the problem To much reading, not intruduced to problem completely No charts explaining/showing dependance of Db on size/number of formed monsters Frequency was plain incorrect

The Opponent Questions quality of parameters Good Not very good  Questions quality of parameters Pointed out lack of theory Doesn’t focus on whether the problem was solved, rather asks about the parameters

Conclusion The presentation was well made, but the explanation was not complete. Representer could have questioned more parameters than he did The opponent ointed out nicely how the theory was lacking, but failed to see the experiment could have had a lot more parameters