外文文献翻译--用“如果…又怎样”的问题去用于教科学(编辑修改稿)

外文文献翻译--用“如果…又怎样”的问题去用于教科学(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

ponses 1. “ What if there was no boiling stones in the flask?” Typical peer responses: a. “There will be no boiling in the water.” (Misconception) b. “Boiling will spill out of the flask.” (Possible, especially if “bumping” occurs and may cause the boiling liquid to spill out through the thermometer adaptor.) What could happen and why it happened: The boiling stones provide jagged surfaces for dissolved air to form small air will prevent the formation of a big air bubble at the bottom of the flask which would attempt to “break free”, hence the “bumping” phenomenon. 2.“ What if the positions of the water inlet and outlet of the condenser were switched? Typical peer responses: a. “There will not be any liquid collected.” (Misconception) b. “There will be less liquid collected.” (Actual result) What could happen and why it happened: The direction of condensing medium (cold water) in the jacket of the condenser should be opposing 8 the direction of the hot vapour entering the condenser through the tube. This way, there will always be a maximal temperature gradient between the hot vapour and cold condensing medium, resulting in a large amount of vapour condensing into the switching their positions, the temperature gradient will be greatly reduced and somewhere midway or so in the condenser, the temperature difference between the vapour and the medium may not be significant enough to continue a good condensation process, hence the amount of distillate obtained will be reduced. 3 “ What if there were no thermometer in the set up?” Typical peer responses: a. “I cannot do the experiment, because I cannot read the temperature.” (Fair enough, but distillation can still continue without the thermometer in place.) b. “The distillation will be slower.” (Misconception) What could happen and why it happened: The thermometer serves only as a monitoring instrument in this apparatus set does not contribute to the distillation distillation will still continue as usual, at the same rate, with or without the thermometer. Table 3: Typical peer responses (verbal) to “What if…” questions posed by students Discussion The teachertalk section lasted about ten took about another ten minutes to think about how to pose and write down the involved closely studying the diagram on the projector screen, generating possibilities on how the questions may be written, and making sense of the questions and possible responses if they know the was what one student did – she provided answers to her own questions.(See Annex A, last example) The next twenty minutes were spent on facilitating peer responses to the is interesting to note that the students came from two classes and may not 9 have known each other this is may be an assumption, what is amazing was that they were able to warm up to a total stranger, the remedial teacher, in just a couple of were chatty and fully engrossed in contributing to possible answers to their peers‟ was laughter, an occasional argument and of course, delightful ments like “Ah, we didn’t know that!” or “Oh, now I see!” (for example, when the teacher mented that theoretically, replacing the Bunsen burner with a candle would still lead to pure water being collected as the distillate, but in practice, this would be a slower and a less efficient process).They also expressed surprise that the thermometer is not an essential piece of apparatus in the set up. The entire classroom learning experience threw up several interesting and noteworthy teachinglearning issues for science teachers. (1) Modeling real life learning experiences. Reflective learning strategies, like the use of “what if” questions, can be effectively applied to classroom learning experiences are, in effect, models of real life problemsolving and learning experiences (Associated Press, 2020。 CNN, 2020。 Straits Times, 2020). By posing “what if” questions on the distillation set up, students not only get to see the “problem” from different angles, they also have to generate different possibilities and interpret the situation in different ways. (2) Engagement of dialogic activity. Students were actively engaged in generating possibilities, defending their ideas, and developing deeper insights through social interactions with peers. There were a lot of opportunities for studentstudent and teacherstudent munication. Plain knowledge dissemination and routine assessment tasks following a traditional lecturedemonstration lesson would at best result in students being able to understand the basic technical concepts and to apply the knowledge within a very limited scope (that is, within the curricular requirements). (3) New knowledge and learning opportunities. 10 From the students‟ “what if” questions and the corresponding responses from the floor, including those from the teacher, new knowledge and challenges of these were surfaced from the discussions and some could even be extended into mini projects or investigative activities in the several learning situations arising from students‟ questions and responses (Tables 2 and 3) are not within the curricular requirements, new learning experiences gained from this lesson could help students transfer their observation and analytical skills to other learning situations in future. The experience may be refreshing but several concerns have also been identified. (1) Readiness of the teacher. In facilitating the discussion, the teacher has to be k。