1. 10-18-17 Comprehensive - The Importance of Communication within the Science Community
Standard SC.7.N.1.7

2. Do Now: Answer in your science notebook
What type of investigation did Mari Kimura perform? Observational study, comparative study, or controlled experiment ?
Observational study, she was observing whether the mosquitos picked up the malaria parasite from the sick bird. She did not compare the mosquitos; she did not control anything to change whether the mosquitos picked up the parasite.

3. Student Work: Meet the Scientist Class Discussion
What did the scientist wonder?
Which mosquito species are responsible for spreading avian malaria?
Did the scientist observe something that led him/her to ask a question? If so, what did he or she observe?
She was infected herself by a parasite and became interested in how parasites work.
How did this scientist answer his/her question (what was the investigation like)?
Collecting mosquito eggs, allowing them to grow in the lab,. The mosquitoes were then allowed to bite an infected bird and she then analyzed the mosquitoes for the presence of the malaria parasite.

4. Student Work: Meet the Scientist Class Discussion
d. What kind of information and data did the scientist gather?
Observational: whether or not the mosquitoes had the parasite after biting the infected bird
e. What has this scientist learned as a result of his/her research?
Which species of mosquitoes could spread avian malaria in the wild

5. Quiz on Monday, 10/23 What will be on the quiz?
Identifying type of investigation given an experiment or research question
Provide an example of how scientific knowledge can be gained through a method other than experimentation

6. Crime Scene: The Case of the Missing Computer Chip
Lesson Objective: Students will be able to explain that scientific knowledge is the result of a great deal of debate and confirmation within the science community.
Standard SC.7.N.1.7: Explain that scientific knowledge is the result of a great deal of debate and confirmation within the science community.

7. Activity Explanation
This activity uses a simulation of a crime scene to help illustrate several principles of the nature of science.
You will be divided into groups of 3-5.
Each team will be given an introductory sheet, a diagram of the crime scene, and an envelope containing 14 clues.

8. Directions
After reading the introductory sheet and looking at the diagram, draw 5 of the clues from the envelope at random.
Using the information at hand, attempt to solve the crime by organizing the evidence in various ways that may lead to a tentative explanation.

9. Directions Uncover more evidence can by drawing 3 more clues.
Begin the process again.
Do not discourage minority opinions!

10. Directions
Draw 3 more cards and proceed as before.

11. Directions
You can now collaborate with another group.

12. Directions
Draw the final 3 clues and continue until there is some general agreement.
Again, allow for minority opinions!

13. Discussion
Science is built on evidence that can be observed or deduced from the physical world.
Evidence is often confusing, seemingly conflicting, and apparently random.
Scientists hope to be able to find more than one line of evidence to help them solve a problem.
They try to integrate this evidence into the larger amount of evidence they already have and make connections in new and different ways that may allow new and different ways of looking at a problem.

14. Discussion
In the game, there are several independent types of clues that may be used to develop a solution.
This illustrates how scientists use a variety of criteria to compare explanations and select the better ones.
Another key point in this game is that scientists try to connect different lines of evidence to form a new hypothesis.
With new evidence comes new ways of connecting the clues.

15. Discussion Human values deeply influence science
Each clues is affected by how important each group member believes it is.
Some people may have strong opinions or strong personalities and have a major effect on what the group thinks.
But sometimes, their reasoning may not be clear.

16. Discussion
Good science must also provide ways to exclude some alternatives.
This was illustrated by how a combination of clues seem to remove certain characters from suspicion (some lacked motive, opportunity, etc.)

17. Discussion Science is open ended. The game is open ended.
There is not enough information presented to say with certainty who the thief is and each clues may create more questions than it helps to answer.

18. Discussion
Scientific knowledge is the result of a great deal of debate and confirmation within the science community.
By discussing others, we can consider different ways of analyzing data and looking at evidence.
You shared your findings with other groups so that others can check your work, learn from your work, or expand on your findings.

19. Summary of Key Points
Scientists hope to be able to find more than one line of evidence to help them solve a problem.
Scientists use a variety of criteria to compare explanations and select the better ones.
Scientists try to connect different lines of evidence to form a new hypothesis.
Human values deeply influence science
Good science must also provide ways to exclude some alternatives.
Science is open ended
Scientific knowledge is the result of a great deal of debate and confirmation within the science community.

20. Exit Ticket: On a provided notecard, answer the essential question:
Why is it important for scientists to communicate with each other?