Zeinab BazziAriel Lossing

Shirley LeffewApril 25, 2012

Action Research Project

Lowrey School

Abstract

This action research project was conducted to answer the question, “What do Lowery

Kindergarten students know about living and nonliving things, and what effect does our 5 E

model lesson plan inquiry instruction have on their knowledge of living and nonliving things?”

We first observed a science lesson in a Dearborn, Michigan classroom and conducted literature

reviews to research misconceptions that students might have. Based on this, we developed a pre-

assessment to determine what students already knew. Using a combination of our own questions

and some from other sources, we assessed students’ abilities to distinguish living from nonliving

and to identify models. We collected data and noticed that students had almost no familiarity

with models and some confusion on the concepts of living and nonliving. We then taught two

inquiry science lessons based on the pre-assessment data. In the first, students explored the

question of what purposes models serve. In the second, students used models to investigate the

differences between living and nonliving things. We administered a post-assessment and

collected the results, which indicated that students’ ability to identify examples of models

showed slight improvement, and that they seemed to more frequently identify cartoon characters

as non-living. Thus, we concluded that our instruction seemed to have some impact on students’

understanding of models, but only a limited impact on their understanding of living and

nonliving things; they showed an understanding of the latter concept when assessed immediately

following the second lesson, but showed only some change in our final post-assessment.

Action Research Project

The University of Michigan – Dearborn offers a science capstone course for students

completing their degree in education.  This semester our class focused on the “big idea” or theme

of models and how we could incorporate them into a science inquiry lesson plan.  The class was

divided into teams of 2-3 people and each group focused on a particular action research question.

The action research question that our team focused on was “What do Lowery Kindergarten

students know about living and nonliving things and what effect does our 5 E  model lesson plan

inquiry instruction have on their knowledge of living and nonliving things”.  Based on the

research that we conducted, we discovered that elementary students have common

misconceptions on whether or not something is living.  We used this research along with

questions that would guide us on the students’ knowledge or misconceptions regarding models.

The pre-assessment questions regarding models were important because they provided us with

knowledge on how to incorporate the “big idea” or theme of models into our 5E inquiry lesson

plans.  

Integrating the concept of using scientific models into teaching the topic of living and

nonliving things is particularly important for multiple reasons. For example, very few living

things may practically be brought into a classroom for a science lesson. Thus, we had to rely

upon models in representing living things for students. We also faced a similar issue in

representing some desired nonliving targets. Also, gaining the ability to use and interpret

multiple types of models leads to students’ understanding of living versus nonliving. The

students understood characteristics of living things more deeply as they see them represented in

different forms. Students were also able to explain their ideas in new ways through use of

scientific models.

Previous research indicates that there are many misconceptions that are evident and

prevalent among primary school children. One misconception held by K-2 students was that the

sun helped plants grow by warming the plants (Barman, Stein, McNair, Barman. 2006). In

essence, the sun provides light to the plant which is used in photosynthesis thus producing food.

One major concern with this misconception is whether students will begin to think that anything

that is warmed by the sun is living e.g.  a car. If we were to show the class a pictorial model of a

car standing under the sun, will the students claim that the car is living? Although students had a

misconception for the function of the sun, many students were able to portray the sun as a

necessity for the growth of plants. Another common misconception held among K-5 students

was that students used the words “eat”, “breathe” and “drink” when discussing the importance of

water, air and sunlight to plants (Barman, Stein, McNair, Barman. 2006). Students should not

associate the needs of humans with those of plants.

          Another interesting article that we found during our research was authored by Haim

Eshach and Michael N. Fried. This article did not directly discuss misconceptions held by

students, but rather it discussed whether students should be taught science during their early

childhood years. We found this relevant to our research because according to the article, “early

exposure to scientific phenomena leads to better understanding of the scientific concepts studied

later in a formal way” (Eshach, Fried. 2005). If students are taught accurate scientific concepts

earlier in their educational career, they will be able to grasp more complex ideas easily as they

continue to learn. They will be able to build on to their prior knowledge in an accurate manner.

Another study that we found explored the misconceptions held by some young children

about living and nonliving things. Students with diverse backgrounds and school aptitude test

scores were interviewed before and after direct classroom instruction on the topic (Venville,

2004). Their teacher was also interviewed on her thinking and chosen lesson structure. Over

these weeks, students were not only given instruction, but also had an opportunity to talk about

their ideas in small groups, sharing and justifying their thoughts on whether or not certain things

were alive (Venville, 2004). The study revealed several interesting misconceptions held by

students; some were based completely on unscientific reasoning (such as the notion that broken

things are not living while things not yet broken are alive). Others were based on more scientific

thinking, such as the concept of movement. In addition to the specific misconceptions revealed

by the study, however, another interesting fact was revealed. Only two of eleven students on

whom the study focused actually went from having unscientific to scientific ideas on this topic

over the course of instruction. In a small number of instances, students even regressed in the

level of scientific reasoning they used in determining whether or not something was living

(Venville, 2004). The study then showed that some other type of instruction is needed if such

misconceptions are really to be changed.

          Another study that was conducted, while not perfectly connected with our planned

research in its entirety, presents some interesting related findings. The study itself sought to

investigate the conceptions children and adults have regarding robots; more specifically,

participants in the study answered questions about the biological and psychological attributes of

a robot and other presented visual stimuli, as well as about whether or not they believed the robot

to be alive (Kitayama, Kitayama, Kitazaki, & Itakura, 2010). Participants in the study ranged in

age from five-year-olds to adults. The researchers found that conceptions of robots across

multiple categories were not consistent across either the child or adult groups of participants.

However, five-year-old children were more likely than any other studied group to attribute

biological traits, as well as living status, to a robot (Kitayama, Kitayama, Kitazaki, & Itakura,

2010). This, in itself, contributes little to our research except the foreknowledge that children in

this Lowery kindergarten classroom may potentially consider robots to be alive. However, other

findings of these researchers lend useful insights that could be significant as we conduct our

study. For example, the researchers noted that children’s various cultural backgrounds and levels

of exposure to robots were not taken into account by the study; the same may be true of potential

living or nonliving examples presented to children in our study (Kitayama, Kitayama, Kitazaki,

& Itakura, 2010). In addition, these researchers saw that the manner in which stimuli were

presented may potentially influence children’s responses (Kitayama, Kitayama, Kitazaki, &

Itakura, 2010). This idea is also something that we must keep in mind.

 In the article entitled “Living or nonliving?” by Britt Legaspi and William Straits (2011),

the authors discovered that educators must keep in mind that students even as early as

kindergarten already have some misconceptions regarding science topics such as living and

nonliving things.  The authors found that almost all of the students answered yes when asked if a

rock was a living thing.  The students reasoned that rocks move because they are in a different

place when they out for recess and they have babies and that is why we have little rocks.  The

authors conclude that “asking the right kind of questions and giving students multiple

opportunities to challenge their thinking is still important” (p. 31).  We must refrain from simply

telling them the correct answer to questioning them in an attempt to challenge their thinking.

          The next article reviewed was entitled “Is It Living?” by Page Keeley (2011). Formative

assessments are used to discover student preconceptions and the conceptions formed before and

after a science topic is covered.  The article points out that even when students answer a question

such as is an animal living correctly it does not mean that the student has an accurate conception

of what the word living means.  Formative assessments can be used to “uncover the hidden

meaning children construct for the word living” (p. 24).  The author discovered that some

students answered that fire was a living thing because it had to be fed wood.  This article also

reminds us that it is important to check and see if all students are familiar with the words or

pictures used in the assessment especially if we have students who are English language learners.

Our research action project not only discovered what the students knew about living and

nonliving things but also the definitions for these words and the words that describe the criteria

for living and nonliving.  We kept in mind the fact that students enter school with preconceived

ideas about topics and meanings for words.  Students were taught to not simply memorize which

things are living and nonliving but how to discover it through scientific inquiry.  The research by

Keeley (2011) will be referenced to make sure that students have an accurate definition for the

words being used in the pre and post assessments especially since we will introduce the concept

of models.  The research will address the above mentioned GLCE’s along with the GLCE for

Kindergarten S.RS.00.11 Demonstrate scientific concepts through various illustrations,

performances, models, exhibits, and activities (www.michigan.gov).  The research by Legaspi

and Straits (2011) will be extended by this use of models in our 5E inquiry lesson plans on living

and nonliving things. The GLCE for Kindergarten Life Science L.OL.00.11 states that students

should be able to identify that living things have basic needs. Another benchmark of the GLCE

that was related to Kindergarteners learning about living things was L.OL.00.12 states that

students should be able to identify and compare living and nonliving things

(www.michigan.gov).

We conducted our action research project at Lowrey School, which is part of Dearborn

Public Schools.  The classroom is composed of 18 students and the cooperating teacher’s name is

Mrs. Aboualayoui. According to Mrs. Aboualayoui, each student in the class has some sort of

language barrier but to varying degrees. Many of the students have native languages other than

English. Some students understand what is being spoken to them and can respond back in

English while other students are unable to clearly comprehend what is being said to them and

they are unable to respond clearly.  As we pre-assessed these students, we witnessed this

language barrier first hand. This will be discussed in more detail in later paragraphs.

The overall classroom is set up so that groups of six students sit around two rectangular

tables that are pushed together.  There is also the carpeted area in the center that allows for entire

group activities.  The students were sitting on the carpeted area of the floor when our group

arrived and Ms. Aboualayoui was about to begin a science lesson on push and pull. She informed

us that there was no textbook for kindergarten science and that they follow the district

curriculum and Michigan Science GLCE.  Her lesson began by telling the students that their job

would be to learn how things move.  She had a variety of ways to demonstrate for the students

different items moving which included a bag of toy cars and trains that the students could play

with, a student moving the wheeled lunch cooler from the corner of the room over to the carpeted

area, opening and shutting the classroom door, and putting a chair back after getting up from the

desk.  

The class discussion about these demonstrations led to the concepts of push and pull.  As

mentioned before, kindergarteners have an enormous amount of energy and can have a short

attention span so the teacher kept management of the classroom by writing the work “recess” on

the board.  Each time she had to stop the lesson because someone was not paying attention or

getting out of control the students were in jeopardy of losing one of the letters.  The students

immediately regained focus because they did not want to take the chance of losing all the letters

which would result in loss of recess for the day.  Once the discussion was complete the students

returned to their seats and were given a piece of paper in order to draw and name one pull

example and one push example.  We walked around and observed the students and noticed that

most of them were able to draw a picture of a pull and push example but needed help in spelling

the name of the example.  Total time of the lesson was approximately 40 minutes.

Our general procedures for this action research are as followed: observations, choosing a

scientific topic to focus on with the help of the cooperating teacher, conducting  research based

upon misconceptions of that topic, creating of the pre-assessment, administering the pre-

assessment, analysis of pre-assessment data, creating of the lessons based upon data, presentation

of the lesson, administering of the post-assessment, analysis of the post-assessment, and

presentation of final report..  

Our first step in this action research project, as previously described, was to go into the

classroom and observe the cooperating teacher present a lesson to the students. We were able to

get a general idea of the cooperating teacher’s pedagogy through this observation. With the help

of the cooperating teacher, we chose to research the topic of living and nonliving things since the

students have already had previous lessons on this unit.

Now that we had narrowed our action research down to a topic, we conducted research

regarding the misconceptions of living things. From the common misconceptions that we found

through our research, we developed a pre-assessment to determine whether or not any of our

students held these misconceptions. A more detailed explanation of our pre-assessment directly

follows this paragraph. Once we developed a pre-assessment, we administered it. We must now

analyze the pre-assessments and record our data.  From our data we will develop and conduct

two lessons based upon any misconceptions that the student have. Once the lessons have been

conducted, we will administer a post- assessment to conclude whether the students still hold any

misconceptions and if the students retained any information that was taught.

In order to address students through the use of models, we needed to assess what they

already knew about models and whether any misconceptions of models were evident. Therefore,

one of our assessment questions asks the students to indicate which of the items provided

represent models. The items provided included a real flower, a plastic flower, a stuffed animal, a

plastic car, and a camera. Students were shown these items. On a worksheet that was passed out,

students circled which items represented models.  All of these items represented models with the

exception of the real flower and the camera. The plastic flower, the stuffed animal and the plastic

car all represented a target. Therefore, they are considered models. The real flower and the

camera do not represent any targets because they are the targets.  We wanted to give each student

in the class this assessment. The reason we gave each student this assessment was to determine

whether there was a classroom-wide misconception. If every student in the class was having the

same misconceptions, we wanted to be certain to address these misconceptions in a lesson. Once

each student had provided his answer, we chose three students to interview, each of us

interviewing one of them. We asked each student to explain the reasoning behind their answers.

We wanted to know what strategies they had used in determining whether an item was a model.

We planned on choosing these students in one of two ways. One way was that we would ask

Mrs. Aboualayoui to choose three students based upon the following classifications: overall high

achieving student, overall average student, overall struggling student. The reason for these

particular classifications was that we would be able to get a representation of the different types

of students present within the classroom. If Mrs. Aboualayoui was unable to make these

classifications for whatever reason, then we would have chosen three students randomly. The

students in this classroom had already received lessons on the concept of living/nonliving things.

Therefore, our next assessment of the students would be to address how much information was

learned or retained. We provided the students with six pictorial models of living and nonliving

things.  The models include the following: an elf, a picture of bugs’ bunny, several trees, a tiger,

a waterfall, and an ant. The waterfall was placed in this assessment because students have a

misconception that anything that moves is living. Water in the waterfall is constantly moving.

This might cause several students to assume that water is living. According to Britt Legaspi and

William Straits, students said that rocks were living because they moved. One student was asked

why he/she thought rocks and moved, and his/her response was that during recess it was in one

spot and then the next day is was somewhere else. This tells us that movement of

living/nonliving things is a common misconception among students (2011).  

Bugs Bunny and the elf are both cartoons which have characteristics similar to human

beings. Therefore, students might assume that because these two cartoons move, grow, talk, eat,

etc. that they are real living things. Students have a common misconception that anything that

eats, drinks, breathes or moves is alive (Bareman, Stein, McNair, and Barman, 2006). Even

though cartoon characters possess these characteristics, they are not living things in reality and it

is important for students to recognize this idea.  Also, a common misconception among students

is that trees are not living things because they are stationary. Since students presume that all

living things move, and trees don’t move, students assume that trees are not living.  We thought

it would be interesting to see how students who have received a lesson on this concept respond to

this question. The tiger and ant are both living things so we believe that students will be able to

label these pictures as such. As we did with the model assessment, we carried out an interview

with three students. We each interviewed one student.. These were the same students used in the

previous assessments. We were really eager to assess the students on this portion because they

have already received lessons on this content. This assessed how well these kindergarteners

retain information the first time around and whether they will retain more information when

taught a certain lesson twice.   

This type of assessment relates to various research studies. For example, we, like

researcher Grady Venville, will ask assessment questions not simply to gauge ability to

distinguish living from inanimate, but also to understand the logic behind students’ decisions

(2004). We intentionally included some specific items in order to identify whether or not

students hold some misconceptions that, according to research, can be common among young

children. For example, Venville suggested that students can misuse scientific concepts such as

movement to classify something nonliving as alive (2004). Thus, one item on our assessment is a

waterfall that is nonliving water in motion.

          Research by Katayama, Katayama, Kitazaki, and Itakura also supports our chosen methods

of pre-assessment. First, this research suggested that student familiarity with an item, or lack

thereof, can play a significant role in their ability to classify it as living or nonliving (2010). The

items included in our assessment seem like they should be familiar to the majority of students,

since they are predominantly common things such as animals, plants, and natural inanimate

objects. However, some objects, such as a Bugs Bunny picture included on the “Is it Living?”

assessment portion, may not be completely familiar to students; some students may see the

aforementioned example as a fictional cartoon character, while others may just see a rabbit. This

could potentially impact their reasoning as to whether or not that picture represents something

living. Thus, we must continue to keep this concept of students’ familiarity and its impact on

responses in mind as we assess. In addition, the researchers in this study also noted that at least

one picture of an item did not portray it satisfactorily, making what should have been a fairly

readily recognizable object difficult for students to identify and categorize as either living or

nonliving (Katayama, Katayama, Kitazaki, & Itakura, 2010). We will go through our

assessments with students item by item in order to make sure that they can identify everything

correctly. Therefore, they will not answer incorrectly simply because of misidentification errors.

Thus, we will increase students’ exposure to different types of models while ideally also

avoiding the aforementioned problem in student understanding.

Our pre-assessment began by giving each student in the kindergarten class a worksheet

with pictures of various things on it and asking them to circle the living things.  The idea of

having the students complete a worksheet with pictures of things that are living and nonliving

was adapted from the research by Cheatham

(http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/tdc02.sci.life.colt.alive/).  The pictures on the

worksheet must include some that appear to be moving based on the research by Legaspi and

Straits (2012) that found misconceptions that a rock was a living thing.  Their research found that

students classified rocks as living things because they moved to different places, “at recess it’s in

one place and when I come back after lunch it’s in a different place” (pg. 28).  Once the students

have completed the living worksheet we will show them some common items one at a time such

as a flower, toy car, camera, and stuffed animal.  Each student will then be given a model

worksheet with the names of each of these items listed.  Students will be asked to circle the item

or items that they believe are models.  The items will remain on display in the center of the

classroom while the students complete the worksheet.  This way the students can look at the

items while they complete the worksheet however they will not be allowed to discuss their ideas

or decisions at this time.  The model pre-assessment activity is an adaptation to a classroom

project that we completed in our capstone class at UMD.  It is important to include this portion

of the pre-assessment since models will be the “big idea” or theme of our 5E inquiry lesson plans

on living and nonliving things.

      The next part of our pre-assessment was the interview portion.  Each student was

asked how he had decided what items to circle on the living worksheet and what makes it living.

The students were also asked what made them decide which items to circle on the model

worksheet and what a model is.  Our group created the questions in the interview portion of the

pre-assessment as an essential building tool for our

5E inquiry lesson plans.  Keeley (2011) points out

that these interview questions help “reveal the

various attributes students use to decide whether

something is living and how students interpret those

attributes” (pg. 24).   

Once our pre-assessment had been

administered and completed, our next task was to

collect and analyze the data. This analysis was used

in the development of appropriate lesson plans that

were reflective of the strengths of this particular

classroom. The data that was collected is represented

in figures 1 and 2. Figure one represents the data

pertaining to what the kindergarten class perceived

Elf

Bugs Bunny

Tree

Leopard

Wate

rfal

Ant02468

101214161820

Figure 1

Yes No

Living/Nonliving Thing

Number of Students

Flower Stuffed Animal

Toy Car

Plastic Flower

Camera0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 2

Yes No

Item Presented in pre-assessment

Number of Students

as living versus nonliving. Figure two represents what the kindergarten class perceived as

models.

From the data shown in figure one, our team observed that some misconceptions among

the students were present. Within this class, 61 percent of the students stated that an elf was a

living thing and almost 56 percent stated that Bugs Bunny was living. All the students were able

to recognize that an ant and a leopard were living things. About 83 percent of the students

recognized that a tree was living and about 28 percent of the students stated that water was

living.

From the data shown in figure two, 83 percent of the students stated that a toy car was a

model. The same amount of students (approximately 67 percent) stated that a plastic flower and a

real flower were both models. This indicated to us that students may not have a deep

understanding of what a model is and what it represents. Approximately 55 percent of the

students stated that a camera was a model. Approximately 61 percent of the students indicated

that a stuffed animal was a model. Although many students correctly indicated that certain

objects were models, our team determined that this may not have been done through actual

student reasoning. Since students have not had a lesson on models prior to this, many of them

seemed to guess and circled all the pictures on the pre-assessment. This is reflected in our data.

Some of the students were looking at their neighbors’ assessments and copying off of their

papers, even though they had been told to work alone. Thus, some correct responses shown in

our data were not necessarily reflective of individual students’ knowledge. For these reasons, our

team decided to teach the students what models are and why we use them.

We decided that our first lesson should focus on models, since students seemed to have a

weak grasp of the big idea, and since this would be a significant component for the remainder of

our instruction. Thus, we began by using a Venn diagram to get students thinking about

comparison and contrast. They placed three toys in the diagram, one with one color, one with a

different color, and one with both of the aforementioned colors. Students were able to do this

successfully. From here, we guided them in exploring the purpose of models (thereby giving

them a better understanding of what models are) through comparison and contrast between

characteristics of a model and its target. Students worked in small groups to compare and

contrast a real flower and a plastic one. Then, various students shared their ideas as one of us

wrote them in a large Venn diagram; students told us where to write each characteristic. Later,

the class discussed other examples of models and what makes them different from the real things

they represent. Ultimately, students discussed reasons why we might choose to use models

instead of their targets and then came up with some additional

examples of models. (To read the full lesson, see Appendix C.)

     Our second lesson dealt with the question of what makes

something either living or nonliving. Our pre-assessment data had

shown that, while students could correctly identify some living

things, they were still somewhat confused on the concept; for

example, some students identified cartoons and water as living. Thus,

we began by simply allowing students to share what they knew about

living things. We wrote their ideas on the board as they shared. We then

worked with them in small groups and gave each group a variety of

items, including living, nonliving, and nonliving models of living things.

We asked students to sort the items into either living or nonliving categories and then explain

their reasoning. Once all groups had finished, we brought the class back together and went

through each item, having some children share their group’s label and reasoning for that item.

We then discussed what students had shared, including the idea that some characteristics (such as

motion) apply to only certain living things. It was also important to discuss that our models were

nonliving, but that their targets were living. We then went through a magazine with the students

and asked them to explain whether or not each thing was living. We emphasized the cartoon

characters, as this had appeared to be a source of confusion on our pre-assessment. We discussed

the idea that cartoons are living in their shows or movies, but not in real life; therefore, they are

not living in the same way that cats or dogs are alive. Finally, we had students draw their own

examples of a living and a nonliving thing. (To view the full lesson, see Appendix C.)

    Our post-assessment, conducted after teaching two lessons on what models are and

what makes something living, respectively, followed the same overall format as our pre-

assessment. The questions themselves were almost identical. One exception was that we changed

the two cartoon characters on our “Is it Living?” sheet to other characters with which we knew,

from our lessons and discussions with students, that many students were familiar. The idea of

these characters as cartoons had explicitly come up in lessons, meaning that students would be

based solely with the question of whether or not cartoons were living. They would not have to be

distracted by unfamiliarity with the characters, ideally giving us a better understanding of how

students thought about fictional characters in terms of living versus nonliving. The only other

change made to the original pre-assessment questions was that we changed two pictures on the

“Models” worksheet. We changed a picture of a camera to a picture of a globe, a model the

classroom teacher had mentioned that the class had previously discussed. We also changed a toy

car to a toy bus, because the students were very familiar with the car, and we did not want them

to answer the assessment based purely on memory of the specific object; however, we did want

to test students on a similar type of object. Due to scheduling issues, we had to conduct our post-

assessment immediately following the students’ spring break. We noted that this may have had

an impact on our assessment results.

Once our post-assessment had been administered and completed, our next task was to

collect and analyze the data. This analysis was to determine whether students understood the

information that was taught to them in the two lessons. The data that was collected is represented

in figures 3 and 4. Figure three represents the data pertaining to what the kindergarten class

perceived as living vs. nonliving. Figure four represents what the kindergarten class perceived as

models. From our analysis of the data, we observed that students had a better understanding of

the idea that fictional characters were not living. Approximately six percent stated that

Spiderman was living in the post assessment as opposed to 56 percent of students who stated that

Bugs Bunny was living in the pre-assessment. The remaining questions showed a very slight

change. In our analysis of the “Models” post-assessment, we noticed that there was not a very

dramatic shift in understanding of models. Figures one and two represent the pre-assessment data

and figures three and four represent post-assessment data.

Elf

Bugs Bunny

Tree

Leopard

Wate

rfal

Ant02468

101214161820

Figure 1

Yes No

Living/Nonliving Thing

Number of Stu-dents

02468

10121416

Figure 2

Yes No

Item Presented in pre-assessment

Number of Stu-dents

Dora

Spiderman

Trees

Leopard

Wate

rfall

Ant02468

1012141618

Figure 3

Yes No

Number of Stu-dents

Flower

Stuffer A

nimal

Toy Bus

Plastic

Flower

Picture

of a globe

02468

10121416

Figure 4

Yes No

Item presented in post-assessment

Number of Stu-dents

Our conclusion based on the analysis of the two assessments suggests that the

kindergarten students could not identify what a model was in the pre-assessment, but seemed to

have slightly greater success recognizing examples of models in the post-assessment. Thus,

teaching with models as part of a 5E inquiry lesson was an effective way to teach about models.

Students were also able to provide examples of different models that they had seen outside of

school during the post-assessment. Incorporating this use of models along with the 5E inquiry

lesson plan was also helpful in correcting misconceptions that the kindergarten students had on

living and nonliving things.  The post assessment indicates an increase in student recognition of

cartoon characters as nonliving.  Students were also able to provide an example of a living thing

and a nonliving thing at the end of the lesson. Therefore, our action research project not only

discovered what misconceptions kindergarten students had regarding living and nonliving things,

but it also addressed the concept of scientific models.  We were able to not only introduce the

“big idea” of models to the students, but also to use the concept to help students to gain a slightly

better understanding, through inquiry, of the difference between living and nonliving things.

Reference

Barman, C. R., Stein, M., McNair, S., & Barman, N. S. (2006). Students' ideas about plants &

plant growth. The American Biology Teacher, 68(2), 73-79. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/218987803?accountid=14578

Eshach.Haim, Fried,N, Michael. (2005). Should students be taught in early childhood. Journal of

Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 315-336. Retrieved from

        http://www.springerlink.com/content/m0410x68476517u1/

"Is It Alive?." Teachers' Domain. 26 Sep. 2003. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.

    http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/tdc02.sci.life.colt.alive/.

Katayama, N., Katayama, J., Kitazaki, M., & Itakura, S. (2010). Young childrens folk

          knowledge of robots. Asian Culture and History, 2(2), 111-116. Retrieved from

          http://search.proquest.com/docview/839752195?accountid=14578

Keeley, P. (2011). Is it living? Science and Children, 48(8), 24-26. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/870286944?accountid=14578;

http://www.nsta.org/publications/browse_journals.aspx?action=issue&id=10.2505/3/

sc11_048_08

Legaspi, B., & Straits, W. (2011). Living or nonliving? Science and Children, 48(8), 27-31.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/870286962?accountid=14578;

http://www.nsta.org/publications/browse_journals.aspx?action=issue&id=10.2505/3/

sc11_048_08

State of Michigan grade level content expectation, kindergarten.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/K-Science_COMPLETE_12-10-

07_218315_7.pdf

Venville, G. (2004). Young children learning about living things: A case study of conceptual

          change from ontological and social perspectives. Journal of Research in Science

          Teaching, 41, 449–480. doi: 10.1002/tea.20011

Appendix A

Tentative Time Schedule for Action Research Project

Date             Procedure                               Approx. Time Needed to Complete

02-16-12    Observe science lesson plan         45 minutes

02-16-12    Discuss science topic with teacher        15 minutes

02-18-12     Research topic to find misconceptions      1 week

03-01-12    Creation of pre-assessment            1 week

03-19-12    Administer pre-assessment             45 minutes

03-20-12    Analysis of pre-assessment            4 days

03-24-12    Creation of lesson plan 1            2 days

03-26-12    Presentation of lesson plan1             45 minutes

03-29-12    Creation of lesson plan 2             2 days

04-02-12    Presentation of lesson plan 2            45 minutes

04-06-12    Creation of post-assessment             1 week

04-16-12    Administer post-assessment             45 minutes

04-17-12    Analysis of post-assessment            4 days

04-25-12     Research presentation                30 minutes

       

*All group members participated equally.

Appendix B

Pre-Assessment

1. “Model” worksheet

2. “Is It Living” worksheet

3. Interview Questions

“Model?”

(Circle which items are models)

Flower

Stuffed animal

Toy car

Plastic flower

Camera

Circle the Living things

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

                 

 Interview questions:

Appendix C

1. A Lesson on 5E scientific models.

2. A 5E inquiry lesson on Living and nonliving things

A Lesson on 5E scientific models.

Grade level:

        Kindergarten

Concept:

·        5E Scientific Models

State Benchmarks/Standards:

S.IP.00.13 Plan and conduct simple investigations.

S.RS.00.11 Demonstrate scientific concepts through various illustrations, performances, models,

exhibits, and activities.

Objectives:

       Students should be able to distinguish how a model is like and not like the real object that it

represents.

Materials:

2 Hula hoops

3 Real flowers

3 Plastic flowers

1 gray toy

1 green toy

1 gray and green toy

pencils

crayons

3 x 5 cards

paper

Safety Concerns:  

    None of the materials are edible. Teachers should watch that none of the materials are

swallowed or mishandled.

Engage:

    The students will gather together on the carpeted area in the center of the classroom.  The

teacher will tell the students that today we are going to discover how a model is like and not like

the real object that it represents.  Ask the students who can tell me what a model is?  Let the

students give a few answers and become excited about discovering the true answer.  Tell the

students that the big question for today that you are hoping they can help you figure out is:  How

is a model like and not like the real object that is represents?  Ask them to use their best

exploration skills to help the class figure out this question.

    The teacher will then use two hula hoops to form a venn diagram in the middle of the carpeted

area where the children are seated.  The teacher will ask the students to look at the way the hula

hoops are placed on the floor and ask them “What does this look like?”  The teacher may have to

draw the two overlapping circles on the board for the students to realize that the hula hoops

represent a venn diagram.  The teacher will then ask the students “What is a venn diagram used

for?”  One gray toy, one green toy and one gray and green toy will be placed on the floor in front

of the venn diagram hula hoops.  The teacher will then ask what can we do with all the items and

the venn diagram on the floor. Students should respond with this question “How do these items

compare to each other?” The teacher may need to ask other prompting questions which might

include:

“How are these items similar?”

“How are these items similar or different?”

“Where do we place them in the venn diagram?”

These questions can be written in plain view of the students. Students will brainstorm about this

question for a minute.  The teacher will then ask for student volunteers to place the gray toy,

green toy, and gray and green toy in the venn diagram made out of hula hoops on the floor.  We

will then have a short discussion regarding the way the toys were placed in the venn diagram.

Explore:

      Students will then be asked to return to their seats where they are in groups of 5-6.  Each

student will be given a sheet of paper with venn diagrams drawn on it and a pencil.  A real

flower and a plastic flower will be placed on each student group table. Students should compare

and contrast the real flower and the plastic flower. As the students were discussing, the teacher

worked with each group and  assessed the students’ reasonings behind their ideas.  

Explain:

       The students will then return to the carpeted area and discuss their ideas.  Students should

also identify which item is the real object and which item is the model (real flower or plastic

flower). The teacher will then complete a venn diagram on the board using the ideas that the

students came up with on how the real flower is like and not like the plastic flower. The teacher

should help students summarize and make some generalizations about their findings (ie “so

models sometimes do not show us what the target does (such as plants “drinking” water).”)

Some ideas that we hope the students will write or draw is that the real flower smells good and

that they both have stems or petals.  Some other ideas for them not being alike could include that

the plastic flower is soft and bendable and the real flower will break if you bend it.

Extend and Apply:

    The students will remain on the carpeted area and the teacher will show the students objects

one at a time that the student should be familiar with such as a doll, toy car, toy bus, picture of

the sun, and so on.  The students will need to first identify the target that the model represents

and then think of something that is like the real object and not like the real object.  

Performance Assessment:

    Students will return to the seats and will each be given a 3x5 card.  Each student will write or

draw an example of a model that they have at home or have seen somewhere else out of school.

We will then collect the 3x5 cards and have the students return to the carpeted area.  Students

will have an opportunity to share their drawing with the entire class.  Each student will tell what

the picture is and why it is a model.  Each student will also provide verbally one reason it is like

the target it represents and one reason it is not like the target it represents.  

A 5E inquiry lesson on Living and nonliving things

Grade level:

       Kindergarten

Concept:

·        Living and nonliving things

State Benchmarks/Standards:

L.OL.00.11 Identify that living things have basic needs.

L.OL.00.12 Identify and compare living and nonliving things.

Objectives:

      Students should be able to identify and compare living and nonliving things and be able to

identify the basic needs of living things.

Materials:

gummy worms

rocks

water

plants

fish

plastic fish

pictures of various things

scissors

magazines

Safety:  

Be sure that the students do not eat the materials.  Be sure that students are careful with

the scissors.

Engage:

The students will gather on the carpeted area and the teacher will tell them that their job

for today is to compare living and nonliving things.  The teacher will ask them to give one

characteristic of a living thing. The students will raise their hand and wait to be called on to give

their idea.  The teacher will pick one student at a time and write their idea on the whiteboard.

The teacher will continue until we have a list of ideas for characteristics of living and nonliving

things on the board. The teacher will then tell the students that today they will explore different

items and decide if they are living or nonliving based on some of the characteristics that we put

on the board and the example of the plant that we used.

Explore:

Students will return to their tables and work in groups of 5-6.  Based on their prior

knowledge and what we discussed they will compare the objects (see list of materials) and sort

them into a living group and a nonliving group.  Encourage students to think about the list of

characteristics that we just created when trying to decide if the item fits in the living group or the

nonliving group.  Students should discuss what characteristics they share and don’t share.   

Explain:

Have students return to the carpeted area and volunteer to share why they classified each

object as living or non-living. Refer to the list of the characteristics/needs of living things that we

wrote on the whiteboard.  Students will also give reasons why the item is grouped as living or

nonliving which may not be listed on the board.  The ideas will then be put into separate lists.

One list for living things and one list for nonliving things. Help students differentiate between

characteristics that always mean something is living (ie needs food and water) and those that

non-living things may appear to have, or that living things may not (movement).

Extend:

Have students remain at the carpeted area. Hold up a magazine with a variety of different

living and nonliving images, including cartoon characters. Select various images, asking students

to identify them as either living or nonliving. Encourage discussion on students’ reasons for their

choices, particularly for the cartoon characters. Help students to understand that while a cartoon

character is living in its movie or show, it is not a living thing in the same way that a cat or a tree

is, because it does not really exist in real life.

Evaluate:

Students will return to their seats and each student will draw a picture of one living thing

and one nonliving thing and give one characteristic of a living thing. If time allows, a few of

them will share their drawings and reasons for their responses

Appendix D

1. “Is it Living” Worksheet

2. “Models” Worksheet

3. Interview Questions

Circle the Living things

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

“Model?”

(Circle which items are models)

Flower

Stuffed animal

Toy bus

Plastic flower

Picture of a globe

 Interview questions: