<p>By the way, I do NOT advocate cheating but I think it is pretty amazing to not expect kids in this day and age to research a bit about this on the internet. Those girls were quite amazing to never even look at one website on this topic to have an understanding of what this was about. I just looked it up even to find out what a trebuchet is and on the first google page it has sites that explain how to make one. I can’t imagine kids never glancing at such a thing. Your girls upheld the teacher’s instructions to not look at the internet but I bet many did. I mean even when my child reads a piece of literature, she may glance at spark notes to just increase her understanding and then writes her own papers. I can’t see why looking at sites that explain how a trebuchet works is all that bad a thing to do and I can’t imagine realistically in today’s information age, to expect kids not to peak at any internet sites to glean information. So, I applaud your D for following that restriction to a T. It is not like I advocate cheating but I think this expectation to not research anything on this is just not realistic. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>I have a comment- I didn’t see the restriction on not using internet for research- but I think that is not only unrealistic but bad practice.
I assume the teacher wanted them to find books in library perhaps?
Libraries around here don’t even have card catalogs anymore, they are all online. Additionally, new reference materials to purchase are limited, and library is more likely to spend the money on an online subscription.
Unless the teacher wanted the students to take a lot more time than needed for trial and error, I don’t understand the restriction either.</p>
<p>We never had to do the trebuchet - but we had to make a rollercoaster. it had to be done 100% in class. there were all these specifications - like it had to have 12 feet of track, it had to do a loop, it had to do two consecutive hills, it had to do a jump and land back on the track… you had a certain amount of space you were allowed to build in, and one table and one chair. the track couldn’t be more than like x amount of feet off the ground, and all sorts of things. it was tricky… but very cool. the track was a foam track like a U (it was a circular thing cut in half), and a marble had to go through it three consecutive times. everyone had to have a theme for their coaster as well. our group did a beach theme… so all of our roller coaster supports were beach buckets and shovels and whatnot, and we had sand all over the place. you also had to calculate out all the numbers for your coaster to prove why it would work before you could even start to build it. it was a fun assignment.</p>
<p>They could look at the internet, at pictures, but not download plans, use any one elses plans or designs or measurements, buy kits etc. The teacher has been doing this for so long that he can tell which were copied and who cheated. There were a number of websites where you could download for a fee or for free all the instructions, and a number of groups did. And it showed. One group did, and their trebuchet broke three times. Another kid used a bungy cord and lost 15 yards for that. My D and her friends went to the hardware store, bought the supplies, scrounged in the garage, learned to use a drill, ducttaped the thing together and it actually worked.</p>
<p>They did research on ratios, weights, and watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The looked at pictures and read about the Trebuchets at the NPR site and the sites where Trebuchet Enthusiats hang out. Yes, there is a subculture of trebuchet and catapult fanatics. They used a LOT of trial and error, and my poor neighbor has about 20 tennis balls in their yard!!! And we almost broke the glass in the bedroom over looking the yard, which was behind the machine!!</p>
<p>At the class yesterday, the teacher could really tell which kids used plans and those that didn’t. He commented that he was very proud of those that come up with their own designs, and was “generous” in his measurements of those that obviously created their own machines, while less so with those that cheated (it was pretty obvious those that did). And several kids helped each other by sharing weights, hammer and nails, string, and parts. THe teacher was glad to see that as it showed teamwork and ingenuity. Those that built their own, but still didn’t get the distance, will be able to write a short paper on why they think it didn’t work, and why others did, for extra credit.</p>
<p>After all that, my D says, yes that really was a rite of passage and she is glad (?) she did it. She can’t wait to laugh and laugh at all the kids that have to do it in the school year. She is so sweet.</p>
<p>I guess you are saying they were allowed to view the internet as long as they did not download plans. So, I guess they could look at plans to see some ideas of how it could be done and then come up with their own. I certainly can see not allowing the buying of kits. It is hard to view a website and read about trebuchets and keep yourself from looking at other designs, I guess. I wonder if a better assignment would be to design something that does not have “plans” available that is not the same project that apparently everyone is doing around the country (funny but it is not a project here, lol). Like Fendergirl’s project of the rollercoaster is an example. In our upper elementary school, they do design/build projects that do not come with instructions either. In an introductory engineering course my D took this year as a college freshman, in a small group she had to design a “lift” that would lift a handicapped person out of a wheelchair and onto a bed. They had to design it, do the calculations, write it up, etc. and then they had to build it and it worked. All the designs were different. But it is not like the project has instructions all over the net for it. I just think if the project is so commonplace and the idea is to learn to do some physics problem solving, it is hard for kids to ignore the internet resources but it might be best to design something from scratch that is not the same school project the rest of the universe seems to be doing. Just an observation. Then the teacher would be assured that kids really were coming up with their own physics problem solving and project. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>When my daughter did physics in high school it was more theoretical not a lab, but she can tell you about the chem and physics majors that collaborate on a trebuchet that flings flaming pumpkins at halloween at her college!</p>
<p>If you saw some of the trebuchets, you could easily tell the kids designed them, when you saw four others in a row, looking exactly alike, well…</p>
<p>The trebuchet uses specific engineering of counter weights, trajectory, and soemthing to do with arc and flinging (our scientific terms the girls resorted to a 10pm Saturday night!)… so there had to be some basic similarities among the projects- weights, wooden arms, axle, and base, but how those are put together was to be the kids design. Like you were living in medievel times.</p>
<p>And I agree, the project didn’t really teach anything. It would have been better to build something, anything to fling the tennis ball, and then have the kids analyze why some projects worked well and others didn’t. Such as, size, materials, ratios, weights, etc. They would have learned more. All there really learned was through trial and error.</p>
<p>I am going to suggest to the teacher just that. To have kids create anything, excluding elastic rubber things (things not used centruries ago) to hurl that tennis ball, and then critique and discuss all the designs in terms of physics.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom, I agree. I think the project could have parameters (ie., materials, etc.) and need to achieve a certain thing (like the lift my D had to do for her class) and then have the kids go to designing it and figuring it out. By having to all kinda make the same thing, a thing where there are how-to’s online and all, is not quite the same level of creative problem solving. The project you are suggesting makes far more sense to me. Then everyone really IS coming up with their own ideas. And perhaps the grade is not on how far the tennis ball gets flung but on the design to achieve the flinging (maybe extra points for flinging it far).
Susan</p>
<p>PS, forgive me for not using scientific terminology. I suck at science and hate it (second D takes after me in this regard and I admire D1 for her aptitude in these sorts of endeavors)…but on the other hand, I used to be a teacher (though of younger kids) and an emphasis in my teaching was on the PROCESS, not the PRODUCT and on PROBLEM SOLVING and creativity. So, I can relate to THAT even though I don’t know a thing about physics and thought Trebuchet was a French figure!</p>
<p>I think a better approach would have been for the school to supply a kit and require the kids to make the project out of the parts supplied. This is what they do in engineering school for projects of this type. You look at what you’ve got, try to figure out how to make something out of it and scratch your head over how you’re going to use some of the things…</p>
<p>Or give them a box of recycled supplies and then let the kids figure it out!!!</p>
<p>To follow up on the standard kit idea, an example of a kit and project from an engineering college is [url=<a href=“http://mesun4.wustl.edu/ME/courses/me141/me141_s00.html]here.[/url”>http://mesun4.wustl.edu/ME/courses/me141/me141_s00.html]here.[/url</a>] Notice the weight given to performance out of the overall grade.</p>
<p>IMHO this was a half-baked idea from the teacher who thought it would be fun for the kids to build something and that the $15 limit would keep it simple and easy. Giving a tight deadline (eg “build it this weekend”) instead of giving plenty of advance notice was a poor choice. And grading on distance is just unreasonable; I have an engineering degree and labs were not graded simply on whether a given experiment worked or not; they wanted to see if you understood what was happening. A fool that got perfect results would get a far lower score than someone who botched the lab but could explain what they did wrong. If that grading approach was good enough for an engineering degree, it ought to be good enough for a HS class.</p>
<p>In short, the teacher may have had his heart in the right place but the execution was completely flawed.</p>
<p>Absolutely it was flawed…</p>
<p>If anyone wants to know what NOT to do, just ask!!</p>
<p>I am sending the teacher a note with these suggestions.</p>
<p>I will site the 3M scientist who was looking for a super glue and discovered PostIts…</p>