Tutor Niedino: Pri Science Questions and Concepts

[atutor2001]

cascada:

I've 3 more questions for your consideration:

(1) Is an eraser a non-living thing or once alive?
(2) Is hair wig made from human hair a non-living thing or once alive?
(3) Is the feather in a feather duster a non-living thing or once alive?

Good questions.

I understand that hairs are dead cells and feathers becomes dead cell when they are full-grown. So I think the answers are 1. once alive; 2. non-living thing and 3. once alive. Trying my luck again.

[CoffeeCat]

niedino, bytheway you quoted wrongly lol. just pointing out=).

[Niedino]

CoffeeCat:

niedino, bytheway you quoted wrongly lol. just pointing out=).

Oops, Thanks for pointing out CoffeeCat.

Cascada, there's a slight misconception in your questions. Firstly, in Primary Science, we teach that non-living things have 2 types: Once Alive and Never Alive. So all the items you mentioned are non-living things, just that they were once alive. (I'm assuming that the eraser is made up of natural rubber, not synthetic, which will make it never alive)

Next, seems like the egg question did not generate as much responses as the seed question ... So here's the answer.

A fertilized egg, just like the seed can be considered a living thing, as it can grow and respond to changes (need warmth to hatch). The embryo gets the food, oxygen and water from the yolk and white, (the amniotic sac)

However, an unfertilized egg is not a living thing, so we have to be careful when explaining to our kids the differences.

Hope it helps

[cascada]

Niedino, thanks for your clarification.

[CoffeeCat]

As an adult i sometimes feel that pri science is over-simplifying things and doing psle science is like a following-the-syllabus thing.

For example following the syllabus a fertilised egg is a living thing but if i am not wrong this is actually a very grey issue in the real medical world.

There is this question that is bugging me. From my memory and the books of my time, they seem to treat that acid rain is not an agent of water pollution. But i was thinking wouldn't acid rain contaminate ponds, lakes etc?

[Niedino]

Hi CoffeeCat,


I do agree that the Science syllabus is simplified. However, the questions I posed are questions at the Primary 3 level, usually taught in Semester 1, in the topic of Diversity. At this age, most kids are 8 approaching 9. Hence, we have to simplify the syllabus to reflect their ability to understand Science concepts at this age. I believe when we were schooling, these complex questions were'nt asked at this age, so actually, our kids are going through a more complex syllabus than we had during our time.

Acid rain is considered a form of pollution and when it falls into water bodies, it is considered water pollution.

Hope it helps

[CoffeeCat]

Yea what you are doing is great because they are thought provoking. Just that when they grew up hopefully they understand how oversimplified those are (it’s an implicit understanding).

[Niedino]

Hi all,


Just to share 2 misconceptions about Plants.. Try asking your children the following questions.

1. Can plants move?
2. Can plants respond?

If your child answers \"no\" to both questions, then your child has a misconception about plants. Most children think about plants as living things that cannot \"move\" and \"respond\". While it is true that plants cannot \"move around freely\" like animals, some of them do move and respond, a good example being the mimosa plant.

Plants also do respond to the changes in their environment, such as growing towards sunlight.

When you go out to a field or a park in future, show your child a mimosa plant, how it responds to touch and share these concepts with them.

Hope it helps

[MoonFlower]

Hi Niedino,


I just came across yr thread, thanks for sharing. I will share with my ds. Appreciate yr time to post.

[James Ang]

Niedino:

Hi all,


Just to share 2 misconceptions about Plants.. Try asking your children the following questions.

1. Can plants move?
2. Can plants respond?

If your child answers \"no\" to both questions, then your child has a misconception about plants. Most children think about plants as living things that cannot \"move\" and \"respond\". While it is true that plants cannot \"move around freely\" like animals, some of them do move and respond, a good example being the mimosa plant.

Plants also do respond to the changes in their environment, such as growing towards sunlight.

When you go out to a field or a park in future, show your child a mimosa plant, how it responds to touch and share these concepts with them.

Hope it helps

I remember that animals can move about from place to place on its own while plants are not able to do so although plants can move by themselves because they are living things. Is \"move around freely\" acceptable since plants can \"move freely\" (subjective) by themselves too I suppose but not from place to place? I prefer to stick to \"animals being able to move about from place to place on their own\" while plants are unable to do so.