Magnet Investigation

As the day’s lesson begins, Karen reminds students that they have been planning for a science investigation. But rather than diving right in to a discussion about their upcoming activity, she asks them instead to quietly think back about what they remember from the previous day’s planning. This short period of silence gives students time to gather their thoughts and focus on their project—remembering what they have learned so far and thinking about what they are anticipating to happen.

Once students have had a moment to reflect, Karen asks them to whisper to their partners about their upcoming work. She offers language to help them begin (“We’ve been working…”), and immediately, the class is animated with lively discussion. Listen carefully and you can hear several students say the word “magnets” to one another. They point to the board, indicating evidence of earlier work. Karen’s request for a TPR, or “total physical response” (the two claps), marks a transition of focus back to her, a signal the students have become familiar with over the course of the school year, and the class is ready to continue.

Moments like this, when students can talk in pairs, are important on a number of levels. As they work with their assigned partners, students have the opportunity to use everyday language as well as the more specialized vocabulary associated with the procedural and conceptual aspects of their work. Talking one-on-one gives them an opportunity to practice their developing language. 

Equally important is the notion that talking in small groups—or, in this case, with just a partner—offers a safe environment for language experimentation. Those too shy to talk in front of large groups often feel more comfortable talking with a peer. This type of interaction prepares their thinking for class discussions and gives them an opportunity to practice communicating their ideas.

As Karen helps students think through the procedures involved in planning their investigations, she focuses on the words that describe the process. By using this vocabulary in context, both out loud and on the board, Karen connects the words and their meanings. Students speak, hear, and see the words, reinforcing the use of this new vocabulary.

She responds to one student, modeling a variety of useful terms to help him find a more precise way to express his ideas. She honors his explanation of going “step by step,” and then encourages him to go further, adding the phrase “what you do in order.” Karen reinforces the plan one more time by using the words “first,” “next,” and “last,” gesturing to indicate the order she means to describe. Finally, she goes one step further by walking forward and back, asking if the student thinks that might be what “step by step” means. What Karen does here is very clever and important. For those in the class who are just learning language, this shows that a phrase can actually have more than one meaning. Her demonstration clarifies the one intended.

As main vocabulary words and their meanings are introduced—either by Karen or the students—they are written on the board, where they can act as references and reminders. The words themselves only have meaning when students begin connecting them with their own experiences. Once they make sense in context, and in a variety of situations, new words can then be used to communicate ideas. With new words being introduced in context throughout the unit, students begin to associate the vocabulary with the ideas they are exploring. 

By posting charts with language generated by the students, Karen keeps new words available for continuous support throughout the lesson. Students are just beginning to develop an understanding of how magnets work, so use everyday language to express their ideas. Karen honors these words (“stick together,” “air bubble”) by including them on the charts, but links them to the scientific vocabulary (“attract,” “force”) students are learning.

Look around the classroom in this clip and you’ll see that the students are surrounded by environmental print. By posting charts that capture language generated by the students, Karen makes sure they always have access to the vocabulary that expresses their ideas as they work. 

Here, Karen uses the class’s “thinking map”—a chart that documents what students have learned about magnets—as a tool for reviewing a previous lesson. The chart is titled “Magnets” and divided into sections labeled “Attract to” and “Do not attract to.” In this way, Karen keeps not just the words, but also the ideas from the students' investigations available to them throughout the lesson. She reviews the ideas represented on the chart out loud, which also gives students an opportunity to hear the language associated with the written word.

Students are just beginning to develop an understanding of what magnets do and how they work, so are using everyday language to express their ideas. Karen has recorded their thoughts at the bottom of the chart. She honors the vocabulary they have used to describe their ideas (“stick together,” “air bubble”), and then links those words with the scientific vocabulary (“attract,” “force”), which students are beginning to recognize and adopt. She takes the opportunity to associate the word “force” with the idea of “attract,” and reminds students that the word “repel” is another useful word in their scientific vocabulary. 

Karen asks students to talk in pairs so they can review what they have learned. This gives each student a chance to both listen and talk. Charts with words generated by the students (environmental print) help them recall ideas that have been talked about in class. Environmental print helps all students, particularly English language learners, to help connect language with ideas.

In a conversation about how magnets stick to different materials, Karen challenges students to be specific in describing their evidence. One student explains his answer in detail using everyday language, which Karen accepts at this initial stage because she is more interested in him communicating his science ideas than using scientific language. It often takes multiple experiences for students to adopt the scientific language associated with an experience. Karen rephrases and models language  (“So you’re telling me a magnet can…, but it…”) to suggest more complex ways of communicating ideas, and reviews by having other students describe the interaction between magnets and materials.

Students have written their own “I wonder” questions, and Karen has posted them on the wall as part of the classroom’s environmental print. Students know that they initiated the questions, and so have an investment in them. Karen uses those questions as a bridge to introduce the class’s upcoming investigation—comparing the strengths of two different kinds of magnets. 

Karen focuses student attention on the main question of their investigation: “Is a block magnet stronger than a ring magnet?” She has students point to the question box in their notebooks (reading), and then talk with their partners (speaking), practicing language skills as they prepare. This activity reminds students that they have resources available if they need to reorient themselves at any point.

In this clip, Karen goes over the materials students will need to do their magnet investigations. But then she goes a step further, asking them to don pretend lab coats and goggles—an example of a “total physical response,” or TPR. This kind of kinetic practice brings a student’s whole body into the process of learning.

Karen has a routine for signaling to her students that they are about to work on a science investigation, and it involves following certain cultural behaviors. These point out to students that, when you do science, you think and act in ways that will help you investigate, including attending to materials and safety.

Simple though it may appear, this lighthearted moment acts as a valuable transition for students getting ready to do a science experiment. It adds some humor to the class, and makes the students remember that their teacher is part of their learning team. It also reminds students that they are acting like real scientists—investigating for themselves, not just hearing about what someone else noticed.

As you’ll see throughout these clips, Karen often engages her students with TPRs. In some cases, a TPR can act as a preparation for a change in activities, as it does here. In other cases, a TPR can be used as a response to a situation, as it does when students show their understanding with thumbs up, down, or to the side (if they’re not sure about something). Karen also uses TPRs when she wants students to practice a certain physical activity, like pretending to lower the magnets into their washer-filled cups for a certain amount of time—an action she models in front of the class. These kinds of activities give students a way to “feel” the expectations of an action they are about to take. 

When Karen asks about next steps, students begin to read from their science notebooks. Reading aloud helps students associate written and oral language. In Karen’s class, notebooks are used to make information and instructions readily available.

As Karen readies the class for their upcoming magnet investigation, she reminds them that there’s something more they need to remember to do. They all answer “fair test.” 

Fair testing is a concept that Karen has reviewed in earlier lessons, and which she will continue to emphasize throughout the school year. It is an important feature of many scientific investigations, and often requires students to identify and control variables, skills they are just beginning to develop. Investigations that utilize fair testing often involve comparing one thing to another; in this case, which magnet is best for picking up washers, or which magnet is stronger. If you test different magnets using different techniques—by lowering them into the washers differently, for instance—you won’t know if it was the kind of magnet or the way it was lowered that affected the number of washers picked up.  

Karen reviews the concept and helps students identify features that will make their tests fair. The class is familiar with this expectation. They understand it at a level appropriate to the work they are doing, agreeing that when “everybody does the same thing” they’re doing a fair test. In this case, students decide to make sure everyone lowers the magnet into the cup the same number of times (three), in the same way (slowly; gently), and for the same amount of time (five seconds).

Karen summarizes the characteristics in front of the class and demonstrates the process, modeling what she wants students to do. She has them pretend to do it along with her. This valuable moment of physical practice is especially valuable for English learners who may need additional help understanding instructions. 

Anticipation runs high as students gather their materials and begin their investigations. Everyone seems to be moving around and talking at once—but the class is focused and the activity intentional. A moment that could have become a free-for-all for students is instead guided by good preparation and effective classroom management.

Managing materials can be overwhelming, and is often used as a reason that hands-on science is not included in a classroom, even when teachers are convinced it is a good way to learn. It can be chaotic when students are all moving around and talking at once, and there can be conflicts and misunderstandings. But by putting careful management strategies in place, these challenges can actually become opportunities for accomplishment and growth. 

Here, we see one strategy for handling this kind of situation. Karen has assigned “material captains”–one student in each group whose responsibility it is to gather and distribute materials. In practice, this looks like a simple solution—and it can be, if the teacher has taken the time to be explicit with students about what is expected in this role.

Karen has introduced this process to her students over the course of the school year, and it has become familiar to them. The responsibility rotates between students, becoming a source of pride and giving them an opportunity to take ownership of this part of the process. The title of “captain” also injects some fun and perceived authority. 

Karen has been as deliberate in organizing the materials as she has been in organizing the students. Everything needed for the investigation is in one place. Processes that could slow the activity—tying strings to magnets, for instance, or counting out washers to put in cups—have already been done. With these preparations out of the way, students can concentrate on their investigations. The result is an almost-invisible organizational structure that allows students to be successful in setting up their experiments with a minimum of distraction, but a big charge of excitement.

Karen reviews next steps. She has the second-graders read one step out loud, asks the whole class to read another step out loud, and then reads the last (and most challenging) step out loud by herself. This keeps all students engaged and gives them a chance to both see and hear the instructions as they follow along in their notebooks. 

Karen helps each pair decide how they want to work together during the investigation. Being able to make their own decisions empowers students to collaborate and make choices. It gives them a chance to think through options, communicate meaningfully, negotiate roles, and enact their own plans.

Before students begin their investigations, Karen reviews how they will be recording their results. By projecting an image of the form students are using, and physically identifying the boxes to be used—pointing at each one as she explains the process—Karen makes sure instructions are not carried just by language, but also by visual clues, a step that is especially important for English language learners. 

A quick reminder that their goal is to achieve a fair test gives students an opportunity to review the steps they’ve agreed to take in testing each magnet. Fair testing can be a challenging idea for second- and third-graders, so frequent reminders and reinforcements are often helpful to facilitate student understanding.

Opportunities to use language are embedded throughout the experience of a hands-on investigation. Partners have to talk with each other about their plans, processes, roles, and results. At the same time, they are also reading in their notebooks, listening to their teacher and their partners, and hearing comments from the students all around them.

Here, students are excited about their discoveries, and are eager share with each other. Each has taken on a specific role: some are busy writing notes and recording data; others are concentrating on counting the five seconds they’ve allotted for each round of magnet testing. All are engaged in and communicating about the experiment.

Karen reassigns pairs of students every few weeks and deliberately partners students with different language abilities, allowing more advanced English speakers to model the use of language as they talk about what they are learning. While this is a beneficial practice, Karen has to monitor pairings to ensure that English-proficient students do not dominate an activity or conversation.

Karen is walking around the room, checking on each group as they work. She is there to listen—to get a sense of what the students are doing and help them think more deeply about their experiments. These interactions push students to use more language to describe their observations and ideas.

Here, one pair expresses disappointment when their magnet picks up fewer washers than another group’s magnet did. Even though they think they’ve done a fair test, they’re clearly getting a different result. Karen says, “Why do you think it came out with a different number?” Asking “Why do you think?” instead of “Why did it come out with a different number?” indicates to the girls that they’re being asked for their thinking rather than for a “right answer.” The technique of asking student-centered questions gives students a way to participate at any level. This is especially important when students are at different levels of language abilities, which is the case in Karen’s classroom. 

At this point, one of the girls suggests that perhaps the other group’s magnet is stronger. As Karen moves on, she asks, “I wonder why? It’s the same size, isn’t it”? There is no resolution at this point, but Karen’s parting comment stimulates the girls to begin questioning their assumptions and think more deeply about their observations.

The whole class is engaged in their investigations, but pairs have chosen different ways to work. In one pair, one student puts the magnet in the cup and the other counts the washers it brings up. In another pair, students take turns using the magnet and counting the results. In order to do this fairly, students have had to negotiate roles, agree on an action, and then carry it out, giving them ownership of the process for doing a fair test.

In this brief interaction, one student offers the explanation that the block magnet was stronger because it had “more force.” When asked what it means to have more force, another student responds “to be more stronger?” Rather than correcting the student’s grammar, Karen responds by modeling the correct usage of the word in context. She is placing the emphasis on students communicating their science ideas, rather than having perfect language to express their understanding. 

A quick check-in around the room by the teacher reveals a lot about student understanding and language use. Peer-to-peer interactions—such as the moment when one student misspeaks and her partner helps her correct her sentence—go by quickly, and may not be caught by the teacher, but support language learning throughout the investigation.

Karen’s class is made up of both second- and third-graders. That means there’s a wide range of skills and life experiences among the students. Some have strong language abilities; others, less so. Some may be more knowledgeable in science, be better at writing, or be more practiced at reading. Karen has been careful to pair students so they can support each other as they work.

This arrangement is most visible in the use of language in the classroom. As they talk about what they’re observing, more advanced language learners model the use of language for those who have less experience. 

Karen checks in with an English language learner to see how she’s doing. She wants to encourage her to practice talking and help prepare her for an upcoming Science Talk.

Karen asks several direct questions that the student does not answer correctly. She begins by asking, “What was our question? What did we want to find out in this lesson?” The student looks in her notebook for the answer, but reads the wrong information. Instead of telling the student that she’s incorrect, Karen acknowledges what is relevant about the information offered and tries to find new ways to approach the problem. When it becomes clear that this is not an easy question to answer, Karen asks the student’s partner—a strong English speaker—to help out, which she does. Karen has purposely put these girls together to take advantage of peer support and language modeling.

Throughout this interaction, Karen accepts the student’s answers and tries to bridge from her replies to the correct information. At one point, she hopes for the student to say something about the block magnet picking up more washers, but even when asked directly “What are these things called?” the word “washers” is not easily available to her. It’s clear that, since the ring magnet looks like the washers, the distinction between the two words has not been made, and Karen again asks for help from the student’s partner.

Karen supports the development of the student’s understanding by drawing on help from her investigation partner, trying to transition from one thought to another, or by looking through the student’s science notebook to find a new source of information. Rather than simply telling the student that she is incorrect, which could undermine confidence and inhibit her from speaking further, Karen instead models new ways she might find and express information and seek help from classroom resources. 

In this brief interaction, one student tells Karen that the block magnet is “more bigger, and it has more force.” Rather than correcting his language, Karen provides an example by repeating his answer using slightly different language: “If it’s bigger,” she says, “it has more force.” In this technique, called recasting, a more proficient in English speaker repeats what someone has said, focusing on using the correct form and often extending the learning by using additional words or phrases. This can help students hear language conventions that they can ultimately make their own.  

Karen asks groups to clean up their materials, putting away all washers and magnets. She has established routines for materials setup and cleanup that allow smooth transitions between hands-on work and discussions. With the distraction of the materials out of the way, Karen can now refocus the class on a new activity.

It’s time for Karen’s students to have a classroom-wide conversation, but Karen doesn’t just jump into the process. Instead, she takes the class through a series of steps designed to prepare them for their Science Talk.

First, Karen orients the class by asking students to identify the main question of their investigation. Together with Karen, the class restates the main question out loud. Then, Karen repeats the question with added detail. It’s important to be sure that everyone participating in a Science Talk understands the question being discussed. By restating the question in small and then large groups, everyone has several opportunities to orient themselves to upcoming work.

Next, Karen asks for a thumb sign from students (a TPR, or “total physical response”) to signal readiness to share. Finally, she has students whisper their answers to one another. This takes student focus off their notebooks and data sheets and gets them talking and sharing, peer-to-peer. It’s only after students have taken these initial steps that Karen opens up a whole-class dialog.

In addition to creating a gradual transition for students, these steps also offer an important way for students to prepare themselves for a Science Talk. By presenting information via multiple entry points—reading, hearing, speaking, watching their peers, watching the teacher, and so on—students at different levels have the opportunity to process and reinforce information.   

In this section of the Science Talk, Karen establishes that the block magnet is stronger than the ring magnet and asks the class to think about why that might be the case.

This question encourages the students to talk about their experience in two ways. Some share evidence supporting their findings that the block magnet was stronger than the ring magnet. Others share their ideas explaining why they think the block magnet is stronger than the ring magnet. Both kinds of responses are valuable in preparing them for upcoming work. One kind of response (the answer to “Which magnet was stronger?”) focuses on the distinction between claims and evidence, terms that will be dealt with in an upcoming lesson. The other kind of response (the answer to “Why do you think the block magnet is stronger?”) focuses on their hypotheses, or possible explanations for their observations.

When supporting students to hypothesize, or explain their observations, it’s useful to ask student-centered questions, such as “Why do you think the block magnet is stronger?” rather than “Why is the block magnet stronger?” Questions phrased in this way have no wrong answer, indicating that the teacher values the student’s thinking. In this case, students can’t be expected to know the answer based only on the experiences they had, but they will have ideas for possible explanations to share, and sharing their thoughts gives them opportunities for using language in meaningful ways. 

One student has a good idea: She uses everyday language to suggest that the hole in the ring magnet diminishes its force. As the conversation continues, students agree that a magnet’s shape and size affects its behavior.

Karen suggests that one student agrees with another’s ideas that a magnet’s size increases its force. By connecting similar ideas, she models how to be a careful listener and how to build on other ideas. 

Karen keeps the conversation going by asking a more focused follow-up question. The new question, “How is the force different with the ring magnet and the block magnet?” elicits further student thinking and talking. In a Science Talk, it is important to have a starter question to get the conversation going, and follow-up questions ready to keep the conversation going if needed. 

Two groups did additional investigations. Here, one pair reports that when the ring and block magnets were stuck together, they picked up all the washers in the cup. They also noticed that, after touching the magnet, the washers themselves became magnetic, sticking not just to the magnet, but to one another. Karen allows these departures and rephrases their observations, engaging students in thinking about ideas that go beyond their initial work.

Here, one student tells Karen that he and his partner tried an experiment of their own after finishing their class investigation. They stuck the ring magnet onto the block magnet and found that, together, the two magnets picked up more washers than either magnet did separately. When Karen asks him why he thinks that happened, he suggests that “the ring magnet wants the block magnet to do all the work”—a creative way of interpreting how magnets work together.

Even though their observations have gone beyond the expectations of the class investigation, Karen allows this departure. Valuing the student’s explanations and observations, even if not directly related to the original question, reinforces these science practices and helps produce additional language.

As they talk, the student’s partner adds that they also noticed the washers “sticking to each other.” Karen restates the observation, saying that the washers “seem to be acting like magnets,” but she does not pursue the science behind the observation, which would go beyond the scope of their understanding. Instead, she says, “I’m wondering what happened there,” and leaves students to think about the relevance of this new information. 

Karen asks for a definition of the word “force,” trying to help students relate “more force” with being able to pick up more washers. She never quite gets an answer, but has students add the word to the vocabulary page of their science notebooks. Student understanding of complex academic vocabulary such as “magnetic force” will develop over time, with repeated opportunities for exposure and authentic use. 

In their investigations, Karen’s students have discovered that different magnets can have different “amounts” of strength. They know that one of their magnets picked up more washers than the other, but don’t always have the words they need to effectively discuss what they’ve seen, or talk about what they think might be happening. In the process of learning more robust academic vocabulary, they often rely on everyday language to express their ideas about scientific phenomena. As a result, Karen begins to introduce new vocabulary that gives students new ways of expressing their ideas of “sticking together,” “pulling up,” and “air bubble.”

Helping students learn those words, understand their meanings, and figure out correct ways to use them, however, is not a trivial undertaking—especially for English language learners. Having an authentic, hands-on science experience is an important starting point in making the language meaningful; giving students the opportunity to say, hear, and write the new words can contribute to making new vocabulary understandable. It will take time and practice for these new terms to become familiar and useful. 

Karen asks students to open their notebooks and has them add several new science words to their vocabulary lists. From there, she prepares them for a conversation about the more complex term, “magnetic force.” In this way, Karen makes sure students know they are transitioning to the use of special scientific vocabulary. 

Here, students are trying to grasp the meaning of the term “magnetic force.” In one instance, at the end of the clip, one student states his belief that a big magnet has more “magnetic force” than a small magnet. Notice that Karen doesn’t correct his scientific idea about magnets. She rephrases what he says by adding that a bigger magnet “might have more magnetic force” than a smaller one.

Though the science is not quite right (magnetic strength is not necessarily a function of magnet size), the repeated use of the term helps students become acquainted with the basic idea that some sort of force is at work as part of a magnet’s properties.  As students have the opportunity to engage with a greater variety of magnets in the future, they will experience that, in some cases, smaller magnets can have as much or more force than bigger magnets.

Karen uses a computer to electronically spell and say “magnetic force” aloud. With the words in front of them for support, students write the term in their notebooks. Using an additional voice—in this case, a digital one—to spell and sound out a word can offer helpful repetition for students learning a language. Used judiciously, technological tools can be valuable in supporting language learning in the classroom. 

Students continue to work on understanding the term “magnetic force.” While they may have an experiential sense of its meaning, they are not yet able to offer a precise definition. They are just starting to practice the academic vocabulary needed to describe the abstract ideas they are beginning to form.

Karen leads the whole-group discussion into a summary phase. Students are prompted to participate with a call-and-response interaction and offer final thoughts and observations. One student notices that the word “magnetic” has the word “magnet” in it, something Karen had noted earlier, but he is at a point where the word and its meaning are just beginning to come together for him.

This is an important moment for the class. They already know the block magnet is stronger than the ring magnet, but this is the first time they correctly attribute that observation to the comparative strength of each magnet’s “magnetic force.” Until now, students have not made explicit the differences between the two.

While they are not quite sure they’re using the term correctly, students are beginning to put the concepts together. Karen still needs to help support the idea of “magnetic power” being the same as a magnet’s “strength,” or “force”—both of which are also new words for some. Though it will take time to internalize these terms, students show signs of beginning to understand these intertwined concepts. This moment is brief, but meaningful, because it sets a foundation that students can build upon as they gain more experience. Karen congratulates them on their progress and begins to prepare for cleanup and closure.

Good classroom management is an important key to the success of a science investigation. Here, Karen uses a variety of techniques—call-and-response, practiced signals, assigned team roles, and reward points, among them—to positively reinforce the students’ experience and calmly bring the activity to a close. 

Karen reviews student progress and points out that they are ready to go on to a new phase. This sort of benchmarking—identifying where students have been and where they are going—helps them keep in mind that they are in the middle of a meaningful scientific process.

Karen has pairs working together so English language learners and native English speakers can support one another. In this segment, she asks partner pairs to help each other find a particular page in their science notebooks. Karen uses partner work later in the lesson, as well, when the pairs check each other’s work to make sure they have circled the correct numbers on their data sheets.

In this clip, we get a sense for how this technique blurs lines when an English language learner ends up helping an English-only student find his place. Since Karen has encouraged this sort of collaborative work from the start, it provides an avenue for students to share on-task ideas, even when the teacher is in charge of the talk.

Karen compares student work to the steps professional scientists take, supporting the notion that students are doing authentic science. She asks students to “start thinking like a scientist.” They review the steps they took in their investigation and recall new vocabulary. Karen needs to be sure students can refocus on previous work so they can participate in an upcoming discussion. 

Notice that, in this clip, Karen prompts one student to define his terms, and gives him the opportunity to work out the language as he talks. She does not correct him when he says the magnet is “bigger more,” choosing to honor his science ideas (which are accurate) without correcting his grammar (which can be done later, if needed).

Open discussions are meant to support students in communicating their ideas. Correcting grammar during a whole-group science discussion can direct student thinking away from the goal of making meaning of the science ideas under investigation. This is particularly true for English language learners. This student is trying hard to find the right words, and each step he takes to express himself helps further his language skills. Ultimately, he goes from saying the magnet has more “force” to saying it has more “magnetic force.” He’s beginning to acquire an understanding of this term.

Karen has just introduced the next phase of the class investigation. She’s reminded students of their earlier work, repeated the main question, and asked them to think about their discoveries (that the block magnet is stronger than the ring magnet). Now she directs them to the data sheets in their notebooks and tells them they’re about to show how they know their answer is correct.  Using the data sheet as a reference serves as a scaffold for supporting students to make meaning of their investigation.

For the next few minutes, Karen walks students through a process of circling the largest number of washers picked up by the two magnets used in their experiments. With her support, partners help each other work through a few moments of confusion as they realize that there may be two of the same number on their sheets. Once they’ve identified the data requested, Karen reveals a chart she’s prepared. Going pair by pair, Karen collects data from the whole class, drawing arrows to show how many washers were picked up for each group.

Although students have been introduced to the concepts of claims and evidence in past lessons, they have not yet applied them in this investigation. This demonstration is the beginning of an upcoming lesson that focuses on these concepts.

As Karen finalizes the chart showing results from student investigations, a pattern appears that clearly shows that, for everyone in the class, the block magnet picked up more washers than the ring magnet.

As Karen works, she tells students why recording and sharing scientific data is so important. “…Any scientist can come look at our chart,” she says, and know “exactly what these kids were working on.” She explains the functions of the chart’s titles and labels and points out that the chart is only useful if it has everybody’s information on it. By framing student work in terms of its scientific value, Karen assures the class that the work they’re doing is not random or trivial. It has meaning and importance.

By collecting findings from every group and making them visible in a chart, the whole class can now see how the data they collected supports the observations they made. And for students who are image oriented, or who are still learning to express themselves, a visual representation can serve as an additional entry point, offering clarity of information.

Finally, Karen asks students to talk with their partners about their original main question. Notice that, this time, one student who had earlier struggled with the term “magnetic force” now uses it correctly and without hesitation.

Even though students have answered their focus question, Karen points out that they still need to work out why they know it is correct. Students offer a variety of explanations—some of which are claims, and some evidence, a distinction that has yet to be understood. As Karen facilitates the conversation, she works to help students understand the difference. Once students have a personal experience, it becomes easier for them to relate to its technical term.

After posting the data from the magnet investigation on a class chart, Karen introduces the idea of making claims based on evidence. She has asked students to analyze the information on the chart and talk about how they know their answers (claims) are true (evidence-based). “How do I know that’s the right answer?” she asks. “How do I know that’s true?” She is asking them, in effect, to state the evidence for their claim.

Karen has mentioned the words “claims” and “evidence” in the past, but this is the first time students have been asked to use them. After students answer the investigation question and provide rationales for their answers, Karen tells them they have just made a claim supported by evidence, and then defines the words for them. It’s helpful to give students experiences with the idea related to a new word before introducing the word itself. That way, personal experiences give students context for attaching words to ideas.

As Karen facilitates the conversation, she works to help students make logical associations between claims and evidence. She says that answering a science question is called a “claim,” and the information that helps us know it is true is called the “evidence.” In order to help students understand these new words, Karen says them often and writes student-friendly definitions on the white board. She also provides a variety of opportunities for them to practice out loud, from choral repetition and talking with peers to whole-class presentation. 

After defining the word “claim,” Karen moves on to the word “evidence,” asking students to give her a thumb sign showing how well they understand what it means. In a telling moment, thumbs point in every direction. Some students seem familiar with the term; others seem never to have heard of it.

This approach to formative assessment gives Karen a quick read on class understanding and allows her to respond quickly and appropriately. She begins by asking one student to share his definitions—a technique that is often more effective than having the class hear information from the teacher only. Then, Karen is able to rephrase and reinforce the student’s words. She knows it’s going to take time, practice, and repetition for students to learn these new terms.

It’s time for Karen’s students to sum up their findings from their magnet investigation by making Claims & Evidence posters.

Karen introduces the format and shows the class how to put their posters together. Even though she’s been very specific about how she wants the poster to look, and has used a number of visuals to scaffold the assignment, it’s a challenge for many of her students. Not only do they need to follow a list of verbal instructions, but they also need to do a lot of sentence writing, which can be intimidating. Karen gives students the opportunity to negotiate their own roles. Working together in this way allows students to share skills and experiences, and encourages them to take ownership of the document they create. 

As students begin their posters, Karen uses a teachable moment to remind them to write a complete sentence, using a capital letter and a question mark in their titles. Later, she tells them not to worry about spelling as they write, since she is most interested in capturing their ideas. Worrying about grammar when it impinges on communication can make it difficult for students, and especially language learners, to freely express themselves.

This assignment marks the first time in the lesson that students have been asked to put their thoughts down on a poster. Until now, they’ve written in their own science notebooks. They’ve copied vocabulary words, jotted down questions or notes, and written numbers in worksheets.

But making a poster is a very different thing to do. Not only does it require writing full sentences, but will also be shared with the class—an intimidating prospect for many. Add to that the difficulties of dealing with new vocabulary words (“claims” and “evidence,” in particular), and this becomes a very challenging task.

In this clip, Karen goes from group to group trying to help students distinguish between a claim and the evidence to support a claim. After talking with two pairs, she realizes students are still confused. All have included their evidence as part of their claim.

As she talks with students, Karen continues to model the use of both terms, and asks questions to help them distinguish between the two. With each group, she tells them that for making a claim, they can put the word “because” aside. They can use the answer to the question “Is the block magnet stronger than the ring magnet?” as the claim. “And the why,” she says, “goes on the evidence side.” For the students, however, the “what” and the “why” go together: they do not understand that a claim does not have to have a reason stated with it. It’s not clear to them that they need to separate the two concepts.

Despite these difficulties, Karen never tells students that they are wrong. She keeps them talking, and affirms their responses, but keeps scaffolding their work. As she interacts with them, she makes suggestions, uses leading sentences, and restates words and ideas, all techniques designed to help them further their understanding of the differences between claims and evidence.

After walking around the class using student check-ins as a formative assessment tool, Karen has paused students in their writing assignment. She knows that she needs to do more to help them understand that a claim and its evidence are separate concepts.

To get them back on track, Karen uses several scaffolding techniques. She begins by talking students through the ideas they’ve been working on. She does not tell them that they are doing things wrong or that they need to correct their papers, but instead supports their efforts and, step by step, prompts the needed information from various students in the class. Next, she puts those thoughts together on a piece of paper, modeling the way the Claims & Evidence posters should look.

As Karen works, her own writing is displayed by a document camera so that all the students can easily see her sample poster taking shape. Slowly, they take in this new information and begin clarifying their ideas. There’s still some confusion about what constitutes a claim versus evidence. But Karen is committed to helping students develop an understanding of the difference, which she does incrementally. In future lessons, Karen will continue to work with them. With experience and practice, she knows they will begin to take up these ideas.  

As he figures out that there’s a difference between his claim and his evidence, one student realizes he has confused terms on his poster and written in the wrong place. Karen assuages his fear by assuring the class that making mistakes is okay; it’s how scientists learn new things.

Karen has pairs check each other’s work to be sure they agree on the content of their posters. Peer-to-peer assessment gives students a chance to look critically at their own work, practicing the skills of self-editing. The practice also helps them learn how to offer opinions without being judgmental of other people’s work, and receive comments without feeling defensive. 

Even though there’s still some confusion between the terms “claims” and “evidence,” Karen congratulates students for their efforts and reinforces the value of their collaborations. She has paired students to give emerging English learners the opportunity to pick up language from more advanced English users, but needs to be sure both are participating.

In this pair, we that see one student, whose native language is English, is very confident about sharing his ideas. The other student, an English language learner, is more timid about vocalizing her thoughts. Karen encourages her to talk by simply asking if she agrees with something her partner has said. Karen wants this student to participate, but wants her to feel safe, so allows her to engage in a way that is comfortable by giving a simple “Yes/No” answer. Karen asks if she has more to add, giving her an opportunity to express more of her ideas, but again she answers “No.”

Karen has intentionally paired these two, giving the emerging language learner the opportunity to pick up language from the native language user. She changes these pairings every few weeks, recognizing that some are more productive than others. These kinds of arrangements often maximize language use because pairs working together are encouraged to share speaking time. But Karen has to watch carefully to make sure that English-proficient students do not dominate an activity or conversation.

Working well in pairs is a skill that students develop over time. Throughout the school year, Karen helps her students develop their skills as good collaborators so they can share responsibilities equitably and support each other while working. They learn to take turns in the classroom, listen to each other, and be polite when they disagree. Here, Karen tries to coach two pairs on working well together—providing safe avenues for participation in both cases.

When the stronger English speaker in this pair volunteers that he is doing the writing because he is better at spelling, Karen reminds him that it’s not a concern for the writing they’re doing. This reinforces the approach Karen has to writing in notebooks: students are allowed to express themselves without worrying about spelling so they feel free to communicate their ideas without being overly concerned about spelling and grammatical structures. This is an important way for Karen to signal to students that she values their thinking. It’s especially significant for language learners who may become overwhelmed  by the challenge of dealing with both the rules of writing and the concepts of the science lesson.

In this pair, one student seems to understand the difference between claims and evidence better than his partner. As Karen leads them through a series of questions, they come to a closer understanding together. Karen assures them that they sound “very scientific,” and they happily continue their work. 

This pair takes the initiative to prepare for their conversation with Karen. They decide to “proofread” what they have written, adopting a familiar classroom practice that Karen often uses to reinforce written and spoken language. Their conversation about the use of “force” versus “magnetic force” in their writing shows a productive partnership as the two grapple with science ideas and vocabulary. 

As students finish their Claims & Evidence posters, they use their science notebooks as a resource to help with vocabulary related to the science ideas. Karen encourages students to talk with one another to see if they can add to their posters, encouraging them to use more language and express more ideas.

Before they speak in front of the class, Karen gives students an opportunity to rehearse their presentations and get feedback from one another. In this clip, each pair shares their posters with another pair at their table.

Practice sessions like this allow students to get input from each other and compare their work to the work of their peers. Watch carefully, and you’ll see a few of the students quickly making changes to their own posters after hearing the work of others. They are self-assessing—considering what others are doing, and what they can do better—and updating their work.

As they share, most students read their posters out loud, which is what they will be doing in front of the class. The repetition of language—including the use of new vocabulary—combined with the reading practice, get them ready for their presentations. 

Karen has a pair from each group share their Claims & Evidence posters with the whole class. Each student takes a turn presenting either the claim or evidence side of their poster, giving many students the opportunity to read in front of the class.

Because they are describing a shared experience, the presentations are pretty similar, which helps reinforce ideas and vocabulary through repetition. There are enough differences in the presentations to suggest that there can be many appropriate ways of describing the same experience. As a result, each group’s writing still gives Karen information about the level of their understanding.

Karen occasionally highlights parts of the presentations (for example, that one group had two forms of evidence). In some cases, claims are still being confused with evidence. Karen accepts all efforts equally but knows this is just the beginning of student understanding for these challenging concepts.

In fact, Karen’s students practice group presentations every day on a variety of topics. By making presentations on a regular basis, and listening to them being made by others, students get a chance to practice social and language skills, as well as improve content acquisition. Routines have been established over time for this purpose. For example, every morning, one student presents the weather report and another presents news for the day. This results in a culture where pride in presentation and respectful listening is evident. 

Karen invites students to share any surprises from the investigation. This encourages students to reflect on their learning, considering what they thought before and what they think now. It also provides an opportunity to share last-minute questions and ideas that have not yet been expressed.

Karen has routines for cleaning up quickly that have been established over time. Because students are familiar and comfortable with expectations, materials management is pro forma. Student captains know their jobs, groups signal when they are done, and Karen records their readiness on the board. This type of strategy gives students ownership of their tasks and makes time for other activities.

While it may not seem ideal to have everyone sit on their desks for a whole-group discussion, there’s not enough space in Karen’s room to have students sit in a circle. Still, everyone quickly arranges themselves and finds ways to see each other. This change in orientation signals the transition to a brief Science Talk at the end of the lesson, giving students one more opportunity to share knowledge and use vocabulary.

After starting with a pair share, Karen prompts the class to review their work and think through what they’ve been writing about in their lessons. While she facilitates, she asks for elaboration (“So tell me more about that”), highlights student’s comments (“So we had a claim”), and asks questions to encourage students to express their ideas (“So a claim is a what?”).

In the process of encouraging conversation, Karen reinforces the claims and evidence conventions they’ve been working on many times. Notice that, during the discussion, students use several new vocabulary words (including “claims” and “evidence”) freely and without hesitation.

Although short, this is an important conversation because it allows students to reflect on their work and get closure on the lesson. The conversation ends with mutual applause and affirmation from Karen for the “great work” students did.