Middle and High School … from a Montessori Point of View
This year we have a lot of food in the curriculum. My objective is to make sure everything is edible and add as much more as I can.
Sprinkling salt on slices of squash creates the concentration gradient necessary for osmosis to suck the liquid out of the squash cells, creating little water droplets.
Now we batter them and fry them up to make tempura.
For comparison, the image adjacent shows what happens to the cells of a plant when the water leaves (osmosis under the microscope).
Alice Waters has been in the news a lot recently with the recent evaluation of the Berkley School Lunch Initiative (full report).
Waters instituted a program that:
… offered cooking and garden classes integrated with selected classroom lessons along with improvements in school food and the dining environment. – Rauzon et al. (2010)
The report, which followed 5th and 6th graders into middles school, found that they knew more about nutrition and had greater preferences for fresh fruit and vegetables than students in comparable schools.
The researchers did not go into all of the ancillary benefits of gardening and cooking in the school, because the lessons tie into science and social studies curricula. Of course these benefits should be familiar to the Montessori community since Montessori advocated the erdkinder farm school for adolescents.
The Hershey Montessori School seems to be a good example of what Montessori was aiming for (as is the glimpses we get of child rearing in Mirable). We do a lot ourselves in our little program. I’ve noted before how our greenhouse and bread baking tie into math, science, social studies and art.
I sometimes think that the progression of education traces the evolution of culture and technology over the course of human history much in the way that embryonic development was supposed to recapitulate the evolutionary history of the species.
Ontology does not recapitulates phylogeny, and my observations are probably just about as accurate, but the psychosocial development of early adolescents, who are just discovering who they are and realizing their place in society and history, parallels the fundamental reorganization of human societies brought about by the emergence of agriculture.
The power of capitalism lies in the system’s ability to adapt to the needs of people. It does so by giving preferential rewards to those who best meet those needs as expressed in the market. As part his spring Independent Research Project, middle school student, Mr. Ben T., came up with a simulation game that demonstrates this advantage of capitalist systems over a communal systems that pays the same wage irrespective of the output.
In either the fall or the spring term I require students to include some type of original work in their Independent Research Project (IRP). Most often students take this to mean a natural science experiment, but really it’s open to any subject. Last term one of my students, Ben T., came up with a great simulation game to compare capitalism and socialism. With his and his parent’s consent I’m writing it up here because I hope to be able to use it later this year when we study economic systems and other teachers might find it interesting and useful.
The simulation was conducted with six students (all 7th graders because the 8th graders were in Spanish class at the time) who represented the producers in the system, and one student, Ben, who represented the consumers.
In the first stage, representing capitalism, the producers were told that the consumer would like a car or cars (at least a drawing to represent the cars) and the consumer would pay them based on the drawing. The producers were free to work independently or in self-selected teams, but only one pair of students chose to team up.
Producers were given three minutes to draw their cars, which they then brought to “market” and the consumer “bought” their drawings. The consumer had limited funds, 10 “dollars”, and had to decide how much to pay for each drawing. Producers were free to either accept the offered payment and give the drawing to the consumer or keep their drawing.
This procedure was repeated three times, each turn allowed the producers to refine their drawings from the previous round, particularly if it had not sold, or create new drawings. Since all drawings were offered in an open market, everyone could see which drawings sold best and adapt their drawings to the new information.
Socialism was simulated by offering equal pay to all the producers no matter what car/drawing they produced. Otherwise the procedure was the same as for the capitalism simulation: students were told that they could work together or in teams; they brought their production to market; the consumer could take what they liked or reject the product, but everyone was still paid the same.
At the end of the simulations consumer students were asked:
Students showed markedly different behaviors in each simulation, behaviors that were almost stereotypes capitalist and communistic systems.
Producers in the capitalist simulation started with fairly simple cars in the initial round. One production team drew a single car. Another made four cars with flames on the sides, while another went with horns (as in bulls’ horns rather than instruments that made noise) and yet another drew. When brought to market, despite the fact that almost all drawing were paid for, it quickly became obvious that the consumer had a preference for the more “interesting” drawings. The producer who drew six cars with baskets on top got paid the most.
In the second round one innovator came up with the idea of adding a rocket launcher (Figure 2) and was amply rewarded. In response, in the third round, the market responded to this information with enthusiasm, however, all the rocket launchers were trumped by a tank shooting fire out its back with, “Ben 4 Prez!” written on the side (Figure 1).
The producers responded the the preferences of the consumer. The best example of this was the work of the couple students who decided to pair-up.
Their first car was simple and straightforward and it only garnered one “dollar” (Figure 3a). In the second round they chose to go with quantity, producing a lot of cars (Figure 3b) as that had been a fairly successful strategy of another producer in Round 1. Their reasoning was that since there were two of them they would be able to outproduce the others. By the final round they had developed a train with rocket launchers in addition to a set of cars with rocket launchers (Figure 3c). Again, market pressures had an enormous influence on the final vehicles, but the individual philosophy of the producers also showed through in the vehicle production choices.
[UPDATE 5/17/2012]: The capitalism part of the simulation produces winners and losers, and a good follow-up is to do the distribution of wealth exercise to see just how much wealth is concentrated at the top in the U.S.. The second time I ran the simulation — with a different class — the students were quite put out by the economic disparity that resulted and ended up trying to stage a socialist revolution (which precipitated a counter-revolution from the jailed oligarchs).
Although three rounds were intended, time constraints limited the socialism simulation to a single round, however the results of that single round were sufficient for students to identify the main challenges with communal rewards for production. The producers decided that they would work together and produced two sets of basic cars (Figure 4). Half of the students did not even contribute, they spent their time just standing around. It was the stereotypical road construction crew scene.
All students who responded to the question preferred capitalism, the primary reason being injustice “… cause [during the socialism simulation] some people do nothin’ [and] other people do something.”
Using only one consumer reduces the time needed for the simulation but limits students from seeing that markets can be segmented and different producers can fill different niches. It would be very interesting to see the outcome of the same simulation in a larger class.
The small class size also allowed the simulation to take place in less than half an hour. Most of the post processing of the information gained was done by the student who ran the simulation since it was part of his Individual Research Project. While he did a great job presenting his results at the end of the term, when I use this simulation as part of the lesson on economic systems I would like to try doing a group discussion at the end.
I’m also curious to find out how much more the cars would evolve if given a few more rounds. Which brings up an interesting point for consideration. Since some students have already done the simulation, it may very well influence their actions when I do it again this year. It would probably be useful to make sure that there are more than one consumers, or that there consumer has very different preferences compared to Ben T.. A mixed gender pair of students might make the best set of consumers.
Our school, Lamplighter, has started up a couple soccer teams to play in the local under-8 and under-6 leagues this year. I’m now one of the under-6 coaches, and the curious similarities between them and the middle schoolers is going to have to be the topic of another post; Montessori observed some interesting parallels between the first and third planes of development that are worth getting into. However, since the teams are new, we did not have lines on the practice field. And teaching throw-ins is kinda tricky with imaginary lines.
One of the parents/coaches of the under-8 team, Mr. Surbrook, offered draw out the lines. He also volunteered to give a lesson on geometry and let the middle school (and upper elementary) students help.
To prepare the middle schoolers I did a quick review of Pythagoras’ Theorem using the 3×3, 4×4 and 5×5 squares (see above).
The lesson was interesting because the 7th graders had had a more recent exposure to the equation but, unlike the 8th graders, have not had any algebra yet, so there were some puzzled looks when I rearranged the equation.
That was in the morning. After lunch Mr. Surbrook came in and showed us how to use Pythagoras’ Theorem to make right angles and locate the center of the field. If stretch out six pieces of string, four for the sides and two for the diagonals (calculated with the equation,) at their fullest extent you have a rectangle with decent right angles.
After figuring out the theory inside, we went out to the field and help cut the string and lay out the lines. The kids were a bit disappointed they did not get to actually paint the lines, but we’d run out of time for the day.
Fortunately, they’ll get another chance at surveying when Dr. Houghton brings her class out to map the topography of the campus.
I very much liked how the whole procedure went, with my preparatory lesson first, then Mr. Surbrook practical lesson, and finally the actual practical application. We did something similar when we laid out the greenhouse the first time. That time we threw the kids in without a guide and without the practical lesson. It was a bit of a team-building exercise. It also took quite a bit longer.
Instead of doing the Island of Podiatry in the sandbox, I decided add a practical exercise as part of their Social World test.
Half the class, the first to finish the written portion of the test, were instructed, as a group, to create as many physiographic features as they could in the sandbox. Tomorrow, the other half will have to try to identify as many features as they can.
The first group did a very good job. The kids seemed to enjoy working with the sand, and little details, like the difference between a bay and a gulf, quickly became apparent.
It’ll be interesting to see how the other half does with identification. I could not prevent myself from adding a fjord and cirque even though we have not seen them in class. The fjord should at least be recognized as a valley (definitely a steep sided valley), but hopefully this will allow a moment to talk about post-glacial features. Of course, thinking about it, I should probably add a moraine or subsurface ridge to complete the set.
My small group that had trouble getting SimCity to behave itself on the laptop decided to go build their city in the sandbox instead.
They had just looked through all the civic buildings and zoning options before they took the outside option, so they started with SimCity’s basic introduction to urban planning concepts.
The group chose to locate their city on the ocean, with a river. Previously, when the class had looked up and down the U.S.’s eastern seaboard in Google Maps, we’d noticed that most of the bigger cities, like New York and Charleston were on or near estuaries. (We’d also noticed that most of the cities were protected by some sort of barrier from the direct influence of the oceans.)
[googleMap name=”New York City” description=”NYC on the river and ocean.” width=”480″ height=”400″ mapzoom=”8″ mousewheel=”false”]New York City[/googleMap]
This group gained some significant advantages over just playing the computer game because the sandbox model allowed them create features not built into the game.
In particular, they sculpted an earthen dam with a hydroelectric power plant, that was the centerpiece of their city.
By putting a dam across the estuary they could acquire both fresh water reservoir and hydroelectric power.
It’s probably not unfair to guess that the idea for the dam came primarily from our visit to the Pickwick Landing Hydroelectric Plant last year. I say so because the eight grader who came up with the idea was reminiscing about last year’s immersions for the rest of the day.
The group did a great job, although they did site their landfill upstream of their reservoir. This became a problem because after they presented to the class they turned on the river. We relearned the biblical lesson about not building on the sand. This was not entirely unexpected though; the students had named the city Apocalypse.
The combination of computer simulation and physical model really worked well. So much so that two years from now, when I do this again, I think I’ll require at least one group to do the physical model. But it really worked for them to have at least seen the computer game so I’ll have to build that into the project too.
The theme for this term’s Independent Research Project is Life on the Nature Trail, and my students are required to do some actual field work on the species or taxonomic group they’ve chosen to investigate. One students chose vultures because they saw one in the clearing just outside the trail and we’ve occasionally caught sight of one soaring over the campus.
He’s been trying to lure one in for a closer look.
Since I’ve vetoed the idea of leaving fresh meat out, unless he finds professional to guide him, he’s asked for permission to lie out on the grass pretending to be carrion.
I let him take the camera (see above).
Today we saw one swoop past during P.E., so we took a couple minutes trying to lure vultures (see below).
Unfortunately, it did not seem to work.
While we were working on the needs of living things a couple weeks ago, we acquired two fish; goldfish, fifteen cents apiece.
It was supposed to only be a mental exercise. If you put a water plant, Egeria densa in this case, in an enclosed jar and left it in the sunlight, the plant should use the carbon dioxide in the water to produce oxygen during photosynthesis. A similar jar kept in the dark would produce carbon dioxide and use oxygen as the plant respired.
That was the practical part. Students measure the pH of the water before and after a day in the light and dark. The pH of the jar in the dark should go down as the added carbon dioxide makes the water slightly more acidic. Bromthymol blue solution in the water changes color very nicely within the pH range of this experiment, but, in a pinch, you can also use the pH color strips that are sold for testing aquarium water.
My students did the experiment, made their observations and came to conclusions. Then the lab activity asked them to think about what would happen if you put a fish into each of the jars, to see if students are able to extrapolate based on a well rounded knowledge of respiration and photosynthesis.
My students did the mental experiment, but the next day our two fish turned up, uninvited at least by me.
I’d anticipated something like this so I’d picked up a small fish tank at a yard sale over the summer. I’m not opposed to keeping animals in the classroom, as long as I don’t have to take care of them. Fortunately, since we’re studying life, keeping organisms and attending their needs is something the kids are learning and there is no better way to learn that via practice.
Our fish are surviving. The students have added some gravel and structures to provide habitat. The waterplants, still in there to provide oxygen, seem to be thriving despite some browsing by the goldfish.
One of the few rules is that anything added to the tank should have some purpose to help support the needs of the fish. I’m also encouraging the students to think of ways of maintaining conditions in the tank which would minimize their work. Hopefully some filter feeders, maybe small clams, and similar organisms will turn up and we can talk about ecology. I may have to nudge them in that direction though.
I’m not sure what the fish’s names are as there seems to be some controversy among the students. With a little luck they’ll survive until we start comparing religions. Two years ago we had a frog who passed away at just the right time for us to have to figure out what religion he/she was so we could perform last rites.
And no, I did not kill the frog.
