Content Questions:

2) The process that determines that life on Earth can only access ten percent of the sun's energy that reaches the planet is called photosynthesis.
3) The passage states that when the ecosystem is damaged, “top carnivores” are the first to go hungry because they live off such a small portion of life’s available energy. It further explains this by going into the two hierarchies of biological diversity, one of which is the energy pyramid. The energy pyramid is defined as a “straightforward consequence of the law of diminishing energy flow... a relatively large amount from the sun’s energy incident on earth goes into the plants at the bottom, tapering to a minute quantity to the big carnivores on top.” (p 256) What does all this mean? Well, essentially what is being said is that plants soak up ten percent of the sun’s energy, this energy is then dispersed respectively throughout the different species in the food chain, starting with those who directly consume the plants. As each creature on the food chain consumes those below it, the percentage of that energy exponentially decreases. By the time “top carnivores” consume their prey, the portion of the sun’s energy being ingested is only a fraction of the initial energy that was used in photosynthesis.
4) The energy and biomass pyramids that Wilson describes are essentially congruent to one another (for species above sea level). This suggests that the amount of solar energy absorbed/consumed by a species is directly related to it's respective weight within the biosphere. This concept can at first be confusing because of course a mountain lion or peregrine falcon is in fact much heavier than a fern or even mold, but biomass is measured in regards to a species as a whole. Though this is going on to answer question five, I think it is important to note that Wilson’s biomass pyramid is actually inverted below sea level. Why? Because the photosynthetic organisms below sea level are not plants, they are phytoplankton- microscopic single-celled algae that is continually displaced by water currents. Zooplankton then consume this algae and are likewise consumed by larger fish and marine animals (“top carnivores”) The larger animals ultimately amount to more bulk than these single-celled organisms (which, interestingly enough, actually generate more protoplasm tan plans on land and affix more solar energy, and grow, divide, and die at a much faster rate).

I felt that this article was very redundant in regards to how it went about explaining the March equinox; after reading this article, I can't foresee ever forgetting that on March 20th (or 21st, depending) the length of day and night is nearly equal in all parts of the world. There were also a few other (not as nuanced) facts discussed in this article that I believe to be imperative to understanding the equinox. For one, it is evident that different hemispheres experience alternate seasons based on the axis of the earth which is why- for the most part- certain sources refer to the equinoxes by month name rather than by seasonal name to avoid confusion (i.e. vernal and autumnal). Though this makes sense, I’m confused as to why this is the case when the solstices are referred to in a seasonal manner (summer and winter)- do sources go out of their way to refer to these as the June and December solstices rather than summer and winter? If so, that doesn’t seem quite right to me, seeing as how scientifically they are referred to in other terms. Or, is that not the case because the solstice marks the end of one season and the beginning of another- and likewise, the beginning and end- based on hemisphere... and therefore, technically the terms summer and winter make sense? I don’t even know if that is a cohesive statement/question... and I think I may have answered it for myself just then... but regardless, I’d be curious to find out the reasoning behind how similar sources reference the summer and winter solstices.
    Also, I thought it was purposeful the way the article went into greater detail about day length, and explained that (though the day will be pretty much the same worldwide) places further away from the equator will experience a slightly longer day due to the fact that the “sun takes longer to rise and set farther from the equator because it does not set straight down - it moves in a horizontal direction.” I wasn’t crazy about how the article fell short of further explaining certain things such as the reasoning behind the atmospheric refraction which causes the sun to appear higher in the sky, and simply redirected the reader to another website rather than taking the time to go a little more in depth. However, I guess that this information is not necessarily imperative to the equinox. Regardless, I also enjoyed the brief snippets of information regarding the history behind the equinox and the role it plays in the celebrations amongst varying cultures. The fact that the March equinox is a symbol of rebirth for many cultures contextualizes religious beliefs within the natural sector, making the thread which synthesizes different worldly customs conceptually accessible and- in less academic terms- I just think the whole idea behind that phenomenon in general is totally wicked awesome.

    I don’t necessarily agree with the film when it argues that students are “unaware” of their own theories concerning phenomenon that they haven’t yet learned how to correctly explain (i.e. like seasons and phases of the moon). I think it is in our nature as human beings to formulate theories and ideas about how our world works. Therefore, before they ever step foot in a classroom, students have come to comprehend certain things about their world in ways they can understand. I feel that this is why it can be so difficult as an educator to reconstruct their understanding of certain concepts, especially when it comes to natural phenomenon that they have spent their entire lives approaching with a very specific mindset. I don’t believe it is anyone’s fault (teacher or student) that these misconceptions linger past the date of the initial class “lesson”, or numerous lessons for that matter. This is why I believe it is important to contextualize certain scientific material within multiple lessons as often as you can, because then it allows the student to stretch their minds far enough to encompass the new material in relation to other concepts they approach and on a variety of different levels in general.
    Specifically, here’s what I’m taking away from the video (though it is technically nuanced from the above paragraph): students have spent their whole lives explaining and trying to understand the world in their own terms, so don’t assume that they are a blank slate. Why not ask kids “how do you think this works? how do you think that works?” Questioning of this manner is a way to exercise inquiry, to talk about how people have thought about the world in similar ways in the past, and also that those ideas were well-thought out even though they aren’t necessarily fact. We can constantly be thinking about the world around us, and this curiosity will lead us to discovering truth- which is essentially the inspiration of science in general.   

Learning any new skill requires scaffolding and practice, and inquiry is a skill that students must develop over time in order to implement effectively into their exploration of science.  I definitely agree with the article in regards to the steps necessary to construct a stable foundation for inquiry- building community, modeling, practice, building process skills(questioning, predicting, hypothesizing, investigating, observing, interpreting, and communicating), questioning, and the “Do, Talk, Reflect Write” Cycle.  In addition- before allowing them to engage in inquiry based activities, I agree it is important for students to get their feet wet while still guiding their inquiry with open ended questions as well as group discussion and reflection. In my own teaching, I sometimes find that I forget how on earth I acquired the skills I have as an adult; I therefore think this text is a valuable resource for any teacher. It allowed me to step back and consider the fact that while children are innately intelligent and curious, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we can just throw science in their face and expect them to impulsively have the investigative skills to ask appropriate and leading questions.
    I thought the last chunk of this article was extremely valuable because if offered ideas for ways to extend a lesson to suit the needs and questioning of students, especially those based on kits or controlled materials. Some extensions mentioned that I also believe are important were: modifying kit activities to reference student’s questions, focusing on the direction a class can take after using the kit, and allowing students to base further inquiry investigations based on certain concepts expressed in the kits.
    All in all- I think the topic of inquiry applies to all grade levels, and is something that should be practiced year after year after year.