I chose the question, “How do different surfaces affect the momentum of marbles?” First I had to brainstorm, I thought what could I use to set up an experiment with different surfaces? I chose to use a hard wood floor, carpet and rocky gravel for my surface types. Then I thought how will test the momentum that allows a small and large marble to start at the same speed while testing out the different surfaces? I chose a piece of card board box that was 9 inches long and 6 inches wide to create an incline plane. The incline plane at the highest point, where the marble would be was set at before testing, is 3 inches high held in place by a small box underneath it. Lastly, I had a yard stick and ruler so that I could measure the distance of both marbles after testing each surface to determine which marble had the most and least momentum on a specified surface type.
Once questions were answered and procedures designed, the experiment began. I started with the small marble on the hardwood floor rolling down the incline plane, followed by the larger marble on the same surface. I discovered that the both marbles continues to roll until they were stopped by another object, the wall. They hit the wall and began to roll the opposite direction. So, I decided to time each ball to see how many seconds it took for the marble to hit the wall so I could differentiate between momentums. I found that it took the small marble 3.78 second to hit the wall while it only took the larger marble 3.53 seconds to hit the wall. On the smooth surface the larger marble’s momentum was more than the smaller marbles. Next, I tested the carpet which provided a bumpy surface for the marbles. To my surprise the marbles did not travel far at all. The small marble once at the bottom of the incline plane travel for 12 inches while the larger marble traveled for 15 ½ inches. This proved that the larger marble had more momentum than the smaller marble. The finally test of surfaces was the rocky gravel (the sidewalk) which provided a rocky surface. To my discovery, the small marble traveled 83 inches which is 11 inches longer than 2 yards, the larger marble traveled for 98 inches which is 10 inches short of 3 yards. There was a 15 inch difference between the two marble which finally concludes that the larger marble has more momentum than the smaller marble. I discovered that there is more friction from the carpet than the gravel from outside. I also discovered carpet alter the momentum of the objects more than the rocky gravel.
There are several challenges that I encountered throughout this experiment. I should have expected the marble to continue to roll since the smooth surface would not interfere with straight line of motion. I was unable to use measurements of distance to explore the difference in momentum. I would modify the experiment by providing a stopping point or finish line in which the marbles would be time in correlation to specified distance obtained. I would like to modify the experiment in one of two ways. I would like for experiment to consist of measuring the momentum by timing the object in second to reach a specific distance on various surface. The other modification would be to measure the distance the objects traveled in an unrestricted area. I would like there to more consistency in the variables so that the first test would not have to be modified to due area restrictions. I could have made predictions before each test as well. I could also use toy cars verse marbles due to the friction level produce from the wheels. I also think that the student would like using hot wheels verse marbles. If I used toy trucks we could weigh rocks and fill the back of the trucks up before beginning our test, this would make it more interesting. We could also relate this to construction work and dump trucks.
This experiment would be very beneficial to my students. Guided Inquiry is one of the more student involved inquiry types because the teacher only provides the question, leaving the students to figure out the rest (Banchi & Bell, 2008). I know that the students might face the challenges I experience with restrictions on test area. I would want my students to learn that the greater the mass the greater momentum an object will have. My students should also learn that the more friction a surface has the less momentum an object will be able to create. The students should be able to explain the correlation between their discoveries and Newton’s Laws of motion. This will building on prior knowledge, tying information together to make the experience more meaningful. Throughout the guided inquiry experiment the student will be building on, according to Hammerman (2006) the ability to brainstorm, design the procedure (method) to test their question, test, recording data, explain results and modify and retest, thus providing deeper scientific thinking (Banchi & Bell, 2008).
Through my own engagement of the process I now better understand the thought process of designing procedures that the student would encounter in guided inquiry. This is a more involved type of inquiry according to Banchi and Bell (2008). Engaging in this inquiry experiment helped my understanding of Newton’s First law of motion that was seen in my test. The marbles both would have continued to roll in the straight line motion if they were not interrupted with the wall (Tillery, Enger, & Ross, 2008). The difference in marble sizes provided a visual and concrete experience for fact that the more mass an object has the more inertia (the resistance to change in motion) it possesses as discussed by Tillery, Enger, & Ross (2008). The concept of focus for this experiment was momentum affected by various surfaces. I now have a better understanding of how mass and friction (from various surface types) affects the momentum of an object. I also understand how size can affect an object momentum as well. I can now tie in different aspect of science to this one experience thus building on prior knowledge. I learned what I would want my students to learn during this experiment.
References
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science & Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Engineering design process. (No date). Teach Engineering: resources for k-12. Retrieved January
16, 2011, from http://www.teachengineering.org/engrdesignprocess.php
Hammerman, E. (2006). Modified five Es lesson plan format. In Becoming a Better Science Teacher (pp. 81–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tillery, B. W., Enger, E. D., & Ross, F. C. (2008). Integrated science (4th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
