Investigation+2


 * Focus Question **: Why does water stay in an inverted glass when cardboard is placed over the opening of it?

//** Appoint Groups **//

Equipment manager Reporter Discussion & activity manager Recorder

//** Materials **//

1 x plastic cup Square cardboard Ice cream container/Bucket Water



//** Method/Procedure **//

1. Fill the cup with water to the brim 2. Place the piece of card over the top of the cup 3. Keep the card in place with one hand and hold the tumbler with the other hand. 4. Carefully keeping the card where it should be, turn over the cup so it's upside down over the bucket.



//__ **P**redict ( __ Hypothesis) //

It was predicted that the cardboard would stay onto the cup when turned upside down and the water would not leak out.

//__ **R**eason __//

Possibly due to the pressure of the water and air trapped together pulling the carboard upwards and enabling it to remain attached to the cup.

__// **O**bserve( //__// Results) //


 * The cardboard stayed attached to the cup
 * Water remained inside the cup without leakage



//__ **E**xplain __//

When the cup was turned upside down the cardboard remained attached and kept the water from escaping. Upon the observations it concluded that the predictions were correct but the reasoning was not. It became apparent that it was actually the air pressure outside the cup which is greater than the water pressure that was holding the cardboard in place.

(Frangenheim, 2010)

//** Problems/Improvements **//

The cup that was being used was plastic and less durable so it eventually allowed air inside causing an imbalance. This resulted in a leak and therefore it would be more suitable to use a stronger plastic or glass (safety to be considered).



//** F **////** ollow-Up Investigations **//


 * Investigate what would happen with different amounts of water present in the cup.


 * Reflection **

In this investigation I learned that having roles can really assist with ensuring that all important areas of an investigation is covered while encouraging teamwork and collaboration which is vital in constructing and sharing understandings of science (Australian Academy of Science, 2007). Another important consideration was the differences in predictions to the results of the investigation. As it shows my predictions were correct but this was an inferrence based largely on prior knowledge and it was not until I observed the phenomena and linked it with further theoretical clarification provided by Professor Ken Appleton that my knowledge was deepened. This emphasises the importance of linking theory with hands-on approaches in order to construct my own personal understandings in order to provide reasoning of what was actually occuring (Bell, n.d.). I felt that my predictions lacked substantiation because my prior learning experiences have not been as practical and very theory driven. Therefore I am learning that science is more a way of discovering meaning through being immersed in it than just providing theory in isolation (Bell, n.d.). Another important consideration was that the processes were different to previous investigations depending on what was being investigated. In this particular investigation there were no variables but upon carrying it out it provided greater scope for subsequent investigations that prompted testing variables such as using different amounts of water to test if it would have the same outcome. This has taught me that once again there is no set method or process to carrying out investigations and that there are many different approaches to generate scienctific knowledge (Bell, n.d.).

//__ Research websites __//

[]

[]