Below is an ongoing discussion of the Procss Circus Activity with the most recent comments on top. Scroll down to read older comments.

Please add your thoughts about this activity by clicking below. If you have taught this activity, please describe how it went, and any innovations you made. (Please note: your comments will not appear for about an hour, due to the security setup of our website.)

Add to this discussion

On Monday, May 18 I prepared ten process circus stations for class of first year teacher interns. It went well. They all sailed through the stations for about an hour with a partner. Partners seem to convince each other of the "best" response. But when they met in pairs then in fours there was more discussion and disagreement regarding which process they used at each station. I had the groups tally their responses and this brought more differences of opinion because the fours could not agree and wanted to tally two responses when identifying the "key" (their term) processes used. I have 15 teachers and I had a ball observing them as they interacted. We had a discussion regarding hypothesis, prediction, guessing, questions and the "scientific method" in general. The point was made that maybe this concept of "H" had developmentally inappropriate terms for primary students. Their exit cards indicated they enjoyed the activity and welcomed the chance to continue to think, read, and observe their students to further explore this inquiry-based process. The following Thursday I was asked to present an activity to a group of 35 scientists representing various departments at Caltech. This was their first introduction to the collaborative science program between Pasadena Unified and Caltech. As part of my presentation I involved everyone in two activities from the Balls and Ramps Kinder Kit. As I visited groups all around the house and out in the driveway exploring balls and ramps, I never once heard the word hypothesis. I asked the group if anyone had first formulated a hypothesis before starting. The discussion that followed was informative. At the end Jim Bower concluded that the "scientific method" was a myth and that what really drives scientists is curiosity stated in form of questions they develop after making observations and collecting data about an observable phenomenon. The group did not reach a consensus on this issue. Irma Gonzalez Science Resource Teacher PUSD/ Caltech Science Center

Irma Gonzolez
USA - Friday, January 08, 1999 at 12:10:26 (PST)

of minds out there that are looking for an understanding of the "whys and hows" about our world. For a long time I've thought that given the correct answer to each mater at hand would cause a great improvement in the efficieny of the world. We're all in this game of life together. Peace

Terry J Harlon <>
Shreveport, La USA - Monday, March 09, 1998 at 00:01:02 (PST)

Institute for Inquiry Home


©1997 Exploratorium 3601 Lyon S treet, San Francisco, CA 94123