/-/https/www.sciencebuddies.org/cdn/Files/21464/5/sb-logo.png){kind=logo}
/-/https/www.sciencebuddies.org/cdn/Files/21464/5/sb-logo.png){kind=logo}
Hello!
I was posting over on the physical science board when we started our science fair project this year, because I thought a project on Mars would count as Astronomy. However, after looking over the categories, I think we fall more clearly into "Earth and Planetary Science."
My daughter (6th grade) did a science fair project on dust on volcanoes on Mars.
I'm trying to figure out how to match what she did to the "scientific method" -- There really aren't any controlled or controllable variables, it seems, when working with geology. (For example, she can't hold the latitude and longitude of a volcano constant while varying it's size to see how that affects the amount of dust that accumulates there.)
She has downloaded data from JMARS (TES surface dust abundance and MOLA elevation maps) at the location of various volcanic sites on Mars and tried to see how dust is related to the height of the volcano. Her hypothesis was that the volcanoes could block wind and therefore collect dust. She does not have any data on the wind, though I hope to find the time to download some images of at least a couple of the sites where her hypothesis might be true and look for wind streaks. (We have until March 2nd to finish for the "practice science fair" for our homeschool group, and until March 31st for the "real science fair".)
Her sister got graded very harshly for not having "good controls and strong understanding of the scientific method" last year, so I would really like to have something on her board that speaks to understanding how the scientific method works for this type of work. But, clearly, something has to be different for a project like this. Do you have any guides to the scientific method that don't assume that the experimenter can control any variables she wants to?
--Janet
Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Moderators: AmyCowen, kgudger, bfinio, MadelineB, Moderators
-
deleted-3443
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:45 pm
- Occupation: homeschooling parent
- Project Question: n/a
- Project Due Date: n/a
- Project Status: Not applicable
-
donnahardy2
- Former Expert
- Posts: 2671
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:45 pm
Re: Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Hi Janet,
This sounds like an exciting science project. I’m sure your daughter is learning a lot from studying the data from Mars.
Your daughter has asked a good question, and this is the basis of using the scientific method in an investigation. And, she has a hypothesis that the height of the dust on the volcanoes is related to the wind. If she cannot get any data on wind, however, she won’t be able to test her hypothesis. Looking for wind streaks is a really good idea. I am not familiar with the website you are using, so please let me know what other data is available. With a science project, it’s best to have data that is measurable.
Here are my suggestions for making this project as scientific as possible. First, go to the project guide on this website and read through all of the steps for a project:
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science- ... ndex.shtml
Make sure your daughter has completed the background information on her topic and has stated a hypothesis that can be answered with data that might be available. Have her write up the experimental procedure, materials list. She should be able to explain the science behind her topic, which is Mars, volcanoes, and height of dust, and the reason that she is interested in this subject.
If this project is going to be graded by the same teacher, it might be a good idea to set up an actual experiment with some miniature volcanoes, dust, and create wind that can be measured. Your daughter can try to recreate conditions on Mars for her experiment to test her hypothesis. This is a unique and creative project and I could not find a similar project on the Science Buddies Website. However, I would certainly encourage you and your daughter to continue. Let me know if you need more explanation about the scientific method.
Donna Hardy
This sounds like an exciting science project. I’m sure your daughter is learning a lot from studying the data from Mars.
Your daughter has asked a good question, and this is the basis of using the scientific method in an investigation. And, she has a hypothesis that the height of the dust on the volcanoes is related to the wind. If she cannot get any data on wind, however, she won’t be able to test her hypothesis. Looking for wind streaks is a really good idea. I am not familiar with the website you are using, so please let me know what other data is available. With a science project, it’s best to have data that is measurable.
Here are my suggestions for making this project as scientific as possible. First, go to the project guide on this website and read through all of the steps for a project:
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science- ... ndex.shtml
Make sure your daughter has completed the background information on her topic and has stated a hypothesis that can be answered with data that might be available. Have her write up the experimental procedure, materials list. She should be able to explain the science behind her topic, which is Mars, volcanoes, and height of dust, and the reason that she is interested in this subject.
If this project is going to be graded by the same teacher, it might be a good idea to set up an actual experiment with some miniature volcanoes, dust, and create wind that can be measured. Your daughter can try to recreate conditions on Mars for her experiment to test her hypothesis. This is a unique and creative project and I could not find a similar project on the Science Buddies Website. However, I would certainly encourage you and your daughter to continue. Let me know if you need more explanation about the scientific method.
Donna Hardy
-
deleted-3443
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:45 pm
- Occupation: homeschooling parent
- Project Question: n/a
- Project Due Date: n/a
- Project Status: Not applicable
Re: Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Donna,
Here's a bit of clarification: JMARS is a program from the Mars Flight Facility at Arizona State University. It has all of the data related to Mars from NASA's publicly available Planetary Data Set (PDS), from the Viking landers to present. MOLA is the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter which is where she downloaded elevation and terrain profiles from. TES is the Thermal Emission Spectrometer. The Dust Abundance map is computed from thermal emission data.
Her hypothesis wasn't directly related to the wind. She basically assumed that wind on Mars exists. Her hypothesis was that dust would collect near a "steep volcano", but keep blowing along if there wasn't much slope to block the wind. Her analogy was it would be like the rain blowing up your windshield when you drive.
The dust accumulations on Mars appear to change very slowly. One source we read had the dust accumulations growing at a rate of dozens of microns per year. It’s a background condition that explains the movement of dust, but knowing the specific wind speed and direction at any place and point in time is less relevant, it’s barely a drop in the bucket as far as the timescales needed are concerned. (Which is good, because there have only been a couple of lander missions with meteorology equipment, none of which landed on the top of a volcano. Spirit and Opportunity only carried geology tools.)
The experiment didn't turn out at all like we expected: First, there were no "steep mountains" on Mars, they're all very low-slope shield volcanoes. Second, there were definitely signs of dust collecting on many (most?) of them, even though her hypothesis was that the dust would continue to blow over a shallow slope terrain. So, her hypothesis was not proven.
I think if she wanted to pick things that were hard to measure, she did a very fine job. Dust is very hard to measure from orbit and the data is less accurate than many of the other things she could have picked! So, as we describe our measurements, we have to put a lot of caveats in just to be honest.
Since she surveyed a couple dozen volcanoes from all over the planet, we aren't going to have time to do detailed image analysis of every site to look for corroborating evidence such as wind streaks. We will do at least some, though. My thought was to write up what we have so far, then take a couple of volcanoes that show distinct "dusty" and "less dusty" sides and look for wind streaks to see if the wind tends to come from the "dustier" direction.
Okay, switching from background information to my question again:
The hypothesis part of the scientific method is not the part I'm confused about. It's how to describe our experiment.
From your project guide:
It seems that there really isn't anything well-controlled: the locations (and therefore the surrounding conditions) and sizes of the volcanoes change (a little or a lot) for every dust measurement. Thus, the part of making sure you have a "fair test" --one factor changes at a time-- doesn't seem to be there at all. (Thus, my silly example that we couldn’t hold the latitude and longitude constant while varying the size of the volcano.)
Repeating a measurement to make sure you get the same result is hopefully built in to the released data sets, but we can't really re-measure anything on Mars ourselves.
As a homeschool parent, I am her teacher (and I'm not a hard grader!). This is more trying to figure out how our experiment will be judged at the science fairs we are entering. The homeschool practice science fair is graded by other homeschool moms, and the state science fair is graded by volunteers who in the past have been of variable levels of experience at judging.
So, imagine you are a science fair judge with a worksheet that has boxes to check with scores on things like:
Experiment uses the scientific method.
Experiment tests the hypothesis while controlling for outside factors.
Student performed multiple trials and performed appropriate error or statistical analysis.
I would like to make sure she has some sort of answer to the question of "How does your experiment follow the scientific method?" in her presentation. It's hard to figure out how to describe our non-traditional experiment in terms of what a science fair judge is looking to see. She's worked really hard and learned a lot as well, and I don't want her science fair scores to spoil her experience.
--Janet
Here's a bit of clarification: JMARS is a program from the Mars Flight Facility at Arizona State University. It has all of the data related to Mars from NASA's publicly available Planetary Data Set (PDS), from the Viking landers to present. MOLA is the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter which is where she downloaded elevation and terrain profiles from. TES is the Thermal Emission Spectrometer. The Dust Abundance map is computed from thermal emission data.
Her hypothesis wasn't directly related to the wind. She basically assumed that wind on Mars exists. Her hypothesis was that dust would collect near a "steep volcano", but keep blowing along if there wasn't much slope to block the wind. Her analogy was it would be like the rain blowing up your windshield when you drive.
The dust accumulations on Mars appear to change very slowly. One source we read had the dust accumulations growing at a rate of dozens of microns per year. It’s a background condition that explains the movement of dust, but knowing the specific wind speed and direction at any place and point in time is less relevant, it’s barely a drop in the bucket as far as the timescales needed are concerned. (Which is good, because there have only been a couple of lander missions with meteorology equipment, none of which landed on the top of a volcano. Spirit and Opportunity only carried geology tools.)
The experiment didn't turn out at all like we expected: First, there were no "steep mountains" on Mars, they're all very low-slope shield volcanoes. Second, there were definitely signs of dust collecting on many (most?) of them, even though her hypothesis was that the dust would continue to blow over a shallow slope terrain. So, her hypothesis was not proven.
I think if she wanted to pick things that were hard to measure, she did a very fine job. Dust is very hard to measure from orbit and the data is less accurate than many of the other things she could have picked! So, as we describe our measurements, we have to put a lot of caveats in just to be honest.
Since she surveyed a couple dozen volcanoes from all over the planet, we aren't going to have time to do detailed image analysis of every site to look for corroborating evidence such as wind streaks. We will do at least some, though. My thought was to write up what we have so far, then take a couple of volcanoes that show distinct "dusty" and "less dusty" sides and look for wind streaks to see if the wind tends to come from the "dustier" direction.
Okay, switching from background information to my question again:
The hypothesis part of the scientific method is not the part I'm confused about. It's how to describe our experiment.
From your project guide:
What are controlled variables, what are manipulated variables and what are responding variables for something like what I described above?Your experiment tests whether your hypothesis is true or false. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same. You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident.
It seems that there really isn't anything well-controlled: the locations (and therefore the surrounding conditions) and sizes of the volcanoes change (a little or a lot) for every dust measurement. Thus, the part of making sure you have a "fair test" --one factor changes at a time-- doesn't seem to be there at all. (Thus, my silly example that we couldn’t hold the latitude and longitude constant while varying the size of the volcano.)
Repeating a measurement to make sure you get the same result is hopefully built in to the released data sets, but we can't really re-measure anything on Mars ourselves.
As a homeschool parent, I am her teacher (and I'm not a hard grader!). This is more trying to figure out how our experiment will be judged at the science fairs we are entering. The homeschool practice science fair is graded by other homeschool moms, and the state science fair is graded by volunteers who in the past have been of variable levels of experience at judging.
So, imagine you are a science fair judge with a worksheet that has boxes to check with scores on things like:
Experiment uses the scientific method.
Experiment tests the hypothesis while controlling for outside factors.
Student performed multiple trials and performed appropriate error or statistical analysis.
I would like to make sure she has some sort of answer to the question of "How does your experiment follow the scientific method?" in her presentation. It's hard to figure out how to describe our non-traditional experiment in terms of what a science fair judge is looking to see. She's worked really hard and learned a lot as well, and I don't want her science fair scores to spoil her experience.
--Janet
-
donnahardy2
- Former Expert
- Posts: 2671
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:45 pm
Re: Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Hi Janet,
Thanks for the additional explanation on this project. Since your daughter is using on-line data that has been collected, and is asking a question that can be answered by analyzing the data, then it fully meets the requirements for a science project. I had misunderstood and thought she was trying to compare the level of dust to a parameter with no data available. Her question is related to the slope of the volcano and the quantity of the accumulated dust and it sounds like she has data for both the angle of the slope and for the quantity of dust. I agree with you that your daughter has done a good job of selecting a very hard to measure parameter and this makes the project very challenging. Since the initial survey of the dozen volcanoes did show variation in the dust (in the dozens of micron range), but no difference in the slope of the volcanoes, then she will have to report that her hypothesis was not confirmed. But, as you know, that is perfectly OK in a science project.
This type of data analysis is very time consuming, so I agree that you should stop working on all of the volcanoes, and focus on one or two with “dust” and “less dust” and look for evidence of wind streaks. The assumption that wind exists on Mars is reasonable, and the evidence of wind would help with the explanation of the results. Is there any other possible explanation for the data? Are there any other differences between the dusty and less dusty slopes? Since the original hypothesis for the project was not confirmed, then the conclusion section should have a suggestion for what to look at next to explain the differences in the dust. Since data is limited, the conclusion could also be a proposal for a research idea for the next mission to Mars that could collect the necessary data so your daughter could continue this project in the future.
Your question about how to describe the experiment is a good one. The quotation from the Science Buddies website really applies to experiments where the student designs an experiment with one independent variable and quantitatively measures the results of the dependent variable, and maintains all other parameters controlled. Your daughter was not involved in measuring the results she will be using, so she will have to describe how she obtained her data, and find out as much as possible about how the data was obtained. She is assuming that the recording instruments were functioning properly and will have to assume that the data is accurate.
If I were judging this project, then I would look for the following:
1. A complete project board, with title, purpose, background, hypothesis, procedure, results, analysis of results, discussion/conclusion, and bibliography or works cited. Some judging forms at this grade level include a point score for each section, so it’s important to include all of the sections.
2. The results section should ideally contain a graph showing the slope of the volcano on the y axis (your independent variable) and the thickness of dust (your dependent variable) on the x-axis.
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science- ... ysis.shtml
If it is not possible to do the graph as described, do let me know what data you have, and I’ll make another suggestion. The key to making this a science project is to find some data to present that can be analyzed.
3. The analysis of the data and the discussion/conclusion should apply to the data presented. Since the lack of data is a major limitation of this project, it will be important to limit the conclusion to the available data. If you find photographs of wind streaks, also include these in the results section.
4. One important factor in judging science fair projects is creativity, and this project will definitely get a top score in that category.
I hope this helps.
Donna
p.s. By the way, thanks for your excellent comments on the paper chromatography project yesterday.
Thanks for the additional explanation on this project. Since your daughter is using on-line data that has been collected, and is asking a question that can be answered by analyzing the data, then it fully meets the requirements for a science project. I had misunderstood and thought she was trying to compare the level of dust to a parameter with no data available. Her question is related to the slope of the volcano and the quantity of the accumulated dust and it sounds like she has data for both the angle of the slope and for the quantity of dust. I agree with you that your daughter has done a good job of selecting a very hard to measure parameter and this makes the project very challenging. Since the initial survey of the dozen volcanoes did show variation in the dust (in the dozens of micron range), but no difference in the slope of the volcanoes, then she will have to report that her hypothesis was not confirmed. But, as you know, that is perfectly OK in a science project.
This type of data analysis is very time consuming, so I agree that you should stop working on all of the volcanoes, and focus on one or two with “dust” and “less dust” and look for evidence of wind streaks. The assumption that wind exists on Mars is reasonable, and the evidence of wind would help with the explanation of the results. Is there any other possible explanation for the data? Are there any other differences between the dusty and less dusty slopes? Since the original hypothesis for the project was not confirmed, then the conclusion section should have a suggestion for what to look at next to explain the differences in the dust. Since data is limited, the conclusion could also be a proposal for a research idea for the next mission to Mars that could collect the necessary data so your daughter could continue this project in the future.
Your question about how to describe the experiment is a good one. The quotation from the Science Buddies website really applies to experiments where the student designs an experiment with one independent variable and quantitatively measures the results of the dependent variable, and maintains all other parameters controlled. Your daughter was not involved in measuring the results she will be using, so she will have to describe how she obtained her data, and find out as much as possible about how the data was obtained. She is assuming that the recording instruments were functioning properly and will have to assume that the data is accurate.
If I were judging this project, then I would look for the following:
1. A complete project board, with title, purpose, background, hypothesis, procedure, results, analysis of results, discussion/conclusion, and bibliography or works cited. Some judging forms at this grade level include a point score for each section, so it’s important to include all of the sections.
2. The results section should ideally contain a graph showing the slope of the volcano on the y axis (your independent variable) and the thickness of dust (your dependent variable) on the x-axis.
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science- ... ysis.shtml
If it is not possible to do the graph as described, do let me know what data you have, and I’ll make another suggestion. The key to making this a science project is to find some data to present that can be analyzed.
3. The analysis of the data and the discussion/conclusion should apply to the data presented. Since the lack of data is a major limitation of this project, it will be important to limit the conclusion to the available data. If you find photographs of wind streaks, also include these in the results section.
4. One important factor in judging science fair projects is creativity, and this project will definitely get a top score in that category.
I hope this helps.
Donna
p.s. By the way, thanks for your excellent comments on the paper chromatography project yesterday.
-
deleted-3443
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:45 pm
- Occupation: homeschooling parent
- Project Question: n/a
- Project Due Date: n/a
- Project Status: Not applicable
Re: Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Thanks, Donna!
I keep thinking we are doing OK, writing up our board with the standard sections as you describe, but I keep having doubts about how it will be judged because all the reference materials I have (like the project guide here) assume that you are doing a standard physical science experiment. I feel like we're a square peg in a round hole!
The dust data does not graph nicely (it's a "dust index measure" not an actual dust depth number) and it's VERY rough because (a) "dust" does not reflect the infrared spectrum consistently, it's just a best estimate (b) the pixels on the data are about 14 square kilometers (so the number of pixels varies with the size of the volcano. We are using qualitative words on our charts ("lots" "medium" and "little"), plus pictures from JMARS to illustrate certain volcanoes. (We can't put all the pictures on the board, but we may have a binder with more data.)
I keep thinking we are doing OK, writing up our board with the standard sections as you describe, but I keep having doubts about how it will be judged because all the reference materials I have (like the project guide here) assume that you are doing a standard physical science experiment. I feel like we're a square peg in a round hole!
The dust data does not graph nicely (it's a "dust index measure" not an actual dust depth number) and it's VERY rough because (a) "dust" does not reflect the infrared spectrum consistently, it's just a best estimate (b) the pixels on the data are about 14 square kilometers (so the number of pixels varies with the size of the volcano. We are using qualitative words on our charts ("lots" "medium" and "little"), plus pictures from JMARS to illustrate certain volcanoes. (We can't put all the pictures on the board, but we may have a binder with more data.)
Just trying to "give one, get one" as far as the forum goes!p.s. By the way, thanks for your excellent comments on the paper chromatography project yesterday.
-
donnahardy2
- Former Expert
- Posts: 2671
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:45 pm
Re: Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Hi Janet,
I forgot to comment about the judging in my last post. The judging at the homeschool practice fair doesn’t count because the “judges” will know whose project they are judging, however, you may get some feedback that will help improve the presentation. At the state science fair, the project will be undoubtedly be judged by at least 2 teams of 2-3 judges who are knowledgeable in the subject they will be judging and they will have received training for the specific science fair as well as detailed directions on what criteria to used to evaluate the projects. The top projects will be judged by additional teams, so if there is any problem due to inexperience or lack of knowledge on a particular topic; it will be balanced out by more experienced judges. If there is any discrepancy in the results, the judging coordinators will send more teams to resolve the discrepancy. Based on my experience, I can assure you that every effort will be made to make sure the judging is fair and consistent.
However, in a competitive science fair, like the state fair, there are frequently very minor differences between the top winner and the second place winner, so it is important to present a project that is as complete as possible. Also, projects are compared to other projects that are entered in the same category, and since there is nothing your daughter can do about the competition, she needs to focus on completing this project.
The controlled parameters are that all of the volcanoes are on Mars and the data was collected by the same method. The parameters that you can’t control are the size of the volcano and the longitude and latitude. The dependent variable is a very imprecise dust index measure and the data that does not graph nicely sounds like it is typical data. Your daughter can put the most important photographs on the board and I think it is a good idea to include the rest in a binder with results clearly labeled. The qualitative description of lots, medium, and little are fine. Your daughter will be doing the best possible job of analyzing the data that is available.
I have not seen a project based on on-line data at the elementary level before, so this nontraditional project will probably be a new experience for the judges. Normally, this type of project is not seen until the high school level, after most students have developed advanced computer skills. I had suggested writing up the project with the traditional sections because the judges will be expecting to see these sections. The key to success, I think, is to present the science, discuss how the dust index measure is determined, present the data, and make logical conclusions about the data. And, of course make suggestions for the future. This is essentially the scientific method and how progress is made in science.
I hope this helps.
Donna Hardy
I forgot to comment about the judging in my last post. The judging at the homeschool practice fair doesn’t count because the “judges” will know whose project they are judging, however, you may get some feedback that will help improve the presentation. At the state science fair, the project will be undoubtedly be judged by at least 2 teams of 2-3 judges who are knowledgeable in the subject they will be judging and they will have received training for the specific science fair as well as detailed directions on what criteria to used to evaluate the projects. The top projects will be judged by additional teams, so if there is any problem due to inexperience or lack of knowledge on a particular topic; it will be balanced out by more experienced judges. If there is any discrepancy in the results, the judging coordinators will send more teams to resolve the discrepancy. Based on my experience, I can assure you that every effort will be made to make sure the judging is fair and consistent.
However, in a competitive science fair, like the state fair, there are frequently very minor differences between the top winner and the second place winner, so it is important to present a project that is as complete as possible. Also, projects are compared to other projects that are entered in the same category, and since there is nothing your daughter can do about the competition, she needs to focus on completing this project.
The controlled parameters are that all of the volcanoes are on Mars and the data was collected by the same method. The parameters that you can’t control are the size of the volcano and the longitude and latitude. The dependent variable is a very imprecise dust index measure and the data that does not graph nicely sounds like it is typical data. Your daughter can put the most important photographs on the board and I think it is a good idea to include the rest in a binder with results clearly labeled. The qualitative description of lots, medium, and little are fine. Your daughter will be doing the best possible job of analyzing the data that is available.
I have not seen a project based on on-line data at the elementary level before, so this nontraditional project will probably be a new experience for the judges. Normally, this type of project is not seen until the high school level, after most students have developed advanced computer skills. I had suggested writing up the project with the traditional sections because the judges will be expecting to see these sections. The key to success, I think, is to present the science, discuss how the dust index measure is determined, present the data, and make logical conclusions about the data. And, of course make suggestions for the future. This is essentially the scientific method and how progress is made in science.
I hope this helps.
Donna Hardy
-
donnahardy2
- Former Expert
- Posts: 2671
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:45 pm
Re: Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Hi Janet,
Here are some additional comments on this project. If your daughter has a dust index measure for each volcano she has studied, then she might be able to make 3 additional graphs for volcano size, longitude and latitude. These parameters (independent variable) would be on the x axis, and dust index measure (dependent variable) would be on the y axis. Your daughter would then be able to look at the graph and see if there is any correlation between the dust index and the other parameters. If the graph looks like a random scattering of dots, then there’s probably no correlation, however if the points seem to go in a straight line, then there might be a relationship. Science fair judges expect to see at least one graph on a science board, but would not expect statistical analysis in a 6th grade project, so I think that looking to see if there is a linear relationship between the two sets of data would be fine.
Also, it is important for you to check the rules for the science fair you will be attending. You had mentioned Arizona, so I looked up the rules for this fair. If you are in a different state, then Google “state science fair,” for your state and obtain the pertinent information. Make sure you have submitted your online application for the event.
Here are the rules for the fair:
http://www.azsef.org/projectrules.shtml
Since this is an ISEF affiliated fair, then the following international rules will also apply:
http://www.societyforscience.org/Document.Doc?id=311
First, make a note of the eligibility/ limitations section. The project must be a scientific research project, and not a “library research,” project and your daughter’s project certainly qualifies. Also, please note the maximum acceptable size the size of the project board; since your daughter has so many photographs, the 30 in deep, 48 inch wide, and 108 inch high board size might offer an advantage for this project. The other section you should read is the section on photographs and visual images included on the board. The source of all photographs must be credited on the board. Since all of your photographs are from the same source, then the credit can be made prominently on the board one time and it is not necessary to credit each individual photograph.
It’s very important to follow all of the rules for a science fair.
Donna Hardy
Here are some additional comments on this project. If your daughter has a dust index measure for each volcano she has studied, then she might be able to make 3 additional graphs for volcano size, longitude and latitude. These parameters (independent variable) would be on the x axis, and dust index measure (dependent variable) would be on the y axis. Your daughter would then be able to look at the graph and see if there is any correlation between the dust index and the other parameters. If the graph looks like a random scattering of dots, then there’s probably no correlation, however if the points seem to go in a straight line, then there might be a relationship. Science fair judges expect to see at least one graph on a science board, but would not expect statistical analysis in a 6th grade project, so I think that looking to see if there is a linear relationship between the two sets of data would be fine.
Also, it is important for you to check the rules for the science fair you will be attending. You had mentioned Arizona, so I looked up the rules for this fair. If you are in a different state, then Google “state science fair,” for your state and obtain the pertinent information. Make sure you have submitted your online application for the event.
Here are the rules for the fair:
http://www.azsef.org/projectrules.shtml
Since this is an ISEF affiliated fair, then the following international rules will also apply:
http://www.societyforscience.org/Document.Doc?id=311
First, make a note of the eligibility/ limitations section. The project must be a scientific research project, and not a “library research,” project and your daughter’s project certainly qualifies. Also, please note the maximum acceptable size the size of the project board; since your daughter has so many photographs, the 30 in deep, 48 inch wide, and 108 inch high board size might offer an advantage for this project. The other section you should read is the section on photographs and visual images included on the board. The source of all photographs must be credited on the board. Since all of your photographs are from the same source, then the credit can be made prominently on the board one time and it is not necessary to credit each individual photograph.
It’s very important to follow all of the rules for a science fair.
Donna Hardy
-
deleted-3443
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:45 pm
- Occupation: homeschooling parent
- Project Question: n/a
- Project Due Date: n/a
- Project Status: Not applicable
Re: Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Thanks for the additional tips!
-
deleted-3443
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:45 pm
- Occupation: homeschooling parent
- Project Question: n/a
- Project Due Date: n/a
- Project Status: Not applicable
Re: Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Hi Donna,
Just thought I'd let you know how it turned out...
First, the bad news: In the first round of judging we were a "square-peg-round-hole" at the science fair this year... We got back two judging sheets. One had NO comments at all about the science content, just about her backboard. (Your board is very complex, sometimes less is more). I'm not sure this judge "got it" at all.
The other judge said that her use of data was "outstanding" but that we "did no experiment." Final comment was, "I don't know how you'd do it on this project, but I feel you need to do an experiment (design it) then gather data to use." (So frustrating... the judge appreciated the work, but then demanded something he didn't know how it could have done. How is a 6th grader supposed to figure that out??)
Now the good news.... In the second round of judging, she got a second place special award from the Association of Women Geoscientists. First and third place both went to high schoolers, so we're really proud of her! I think the difference was, this judge was a geoscientist of some sort rather than from the general pool of grade 1-6 judges.
--Janet
Just thought I'd let you know how it turned out...
First, the bad news: In the first round of judging we were a "square-peg-round-hole" at the science fair this year... We got back two judging sheets. One had NO comments at all about the science content, just about her backboard. (Your board is very complex, sometimes less is more). I'm not sure this judge "got it" at all.
The other judge said that her use of data was "outstanding" but that we "did no experiment." Final comment was, "I don't know how you'd do it on this project, but I feel you need to do an experiment (design it) then gather data to use." (So frustrating... the judge appreciated the work, but then demanded something he didn't know how it could have done. How is a 6th grader supposed to figure that out??)
Now the good news.... In the second round of judging, she got a second place special award from the Association of Women Geoscientists. First and third place both went to high schoolers, so we're really proud of her! I think the difference was, this judge was a geoscientist of some sort rather than from the general pool of grade 1-6 judges.
--Janet
-
donnahardy2
- Former Expert
- Posts: 2671
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:45 pm
Re: Earth/Planetary Science and the Scientific Method
Hi Janet,
Thanks so much for taking the time to let us know what happened. It’s possible that the judging guidelines that were given required an experimental project, and that the judges didn’t think that use of the on-line data qualified, or that they did not understand the project. However, I’m very happy that the project was recognized by the special award. Congratulations to your daughter for that award! I think your daughter did a remarkable and very original project, and I hope you will continue to encourage her to pursue her science goals.
We hope to hear from you again next year/
Donna Hardy
Thanks so much for taking the time to let us know what happened. It’s possible that the judging guidelines that were given required an experimental project, and that the judges didn’t think that use of the on-line data qualified, or that they did not understand the project. However, I’m very happy that the project was recognized by the special award. Congratulations to your daughter for that award! I think your daughter did a remarkable and very original project, and I hope you will continue to encourage her to pursue her science goals.
We hope to hear from you again next year/
Donna Hardy