For more information contact:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. LEAF COMPARISONS
2. MOLDING OF BREAD
3. WATERING OF PLANT LIFE
4. PARAKEET EXPERIMENT
5. DOES WEIGHT AFFECT HOW FAST AN OBJECT FALLS?
6. GROWTH OF PLANTS IN DIFFERENT LIGHTS
7. SHOCK ABSORPTION
8. DOES THE ANGLE OF THE WINGS AFFECT THE FLIGHT OF AN
AIRPLANE?
9. DENSITY AND BUOYANCY
10. CAN MY PARENTS IDENTIFY DIFFERENT COLAS?
11. POPCORN POPPING RATES
12. AEROBEE VERSUS FRISEBEE
13. DO OIL AND ANTIFREEZE POLLUTANTS AFFECT THE ABILITY OF
WATER TO PERCOLATE THROUGH SOIL?
LEAF COMPARISON
STUDENT AUTHOR: JUSTIN FEHR
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 5
TEACHER: MRS. ERKEL, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
IN OUR ENVIRONMENT, YOU SEE ALL DIFFERENT SIZES OF PLANTS. I
WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT IF THE LEAVES FROM THE LARGER PLANTS
LIVE LONGER THAN THE LEAVES FROM THE SMALLER PLANTS WHEN
REMOVED. MY HYPOTHESIS STATES THAT THE LEAVES REMOVED FROM
THE LARGER PLANTS WILL LIVE LONGER THAN THE LEAVES REMOVED
FROM THE SMALLER PLANTS.
II. METHODOLOGY
I OBTAINED TWO PIECES OF CARDBOARD AND LABELED ONE FOR THE
LARGE LEAVES AND ONE FOR THE SMALL LEAVES. I CUT THE LEAVES
FROM VARIOUS PLANTS OUTDOORS. I GOT FIVE LARGE LEAVES AND
FIVE SMALL LEAVES AND FOUND OUT THEIR NAMES. THESE NAMES
WERE MARKED ON THE BOARDS AND THE LEAVES WERE PLACED IN
THEIR PROPER SPOTS. I OBSERVED AND DOCUMENTED THE DAY TO
DAY CHANGES OF THE LEAVES FOR EIGHT DAYS.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
I OBSERVED THAT THE SMALLER LEAVES BEGAN TO CLOSE AND
SHRIVEL ON THE FIRST DAY WHERE AS THE LARGER LEAVES TOOK
SEVERAL DAYS TO BEGIN TO CLOSE. SEVERAL OF THE LARGER
LEAVES HAD NO CHANGE FOR SEVERAL DAYS, BUT THE SMALL LEAVES
STARTED LOSING MOISTURE RIGHT AWAY. AT THE END OF THE EIGHT
DAY OF OBSERVATION, THREE OF THE LARGER LEAVES WERE STILL
ALIVE, BUT ONLY ONE OF THE SMALLER LEAVES, THE GARDENIA, WAS
ALIVE. I TOOK ONE LEAF FROM A LARGE MAGNOLIA PLANT AND ONE
FROM A SMALL MAGNOLIA PLANT. THE SMALL LEAF DIED ON THE
SIXTH DAY WHILE THE LARGE LEAF LASTED LONGER.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
I ACCEPT MY HYPOTHESIS AS THE SMALLER LEAVES DID DIE BEFORE
THE LARGER LEAVES. THE MAGNOLIA LEAVES WERE PROOF OF THIS.
MOLDING OF BREAD
STUDENT AUTHOR: GEORGE TAN
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 5
TEACHER: MRS. ERKEL, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANT TO KNOW HOW TEMPERATURE AFFECTS THE MOLDING OF BREAD.
MY HYPOTHESIS STATES THAT TEMPERATURE WILL AFFECT THE
MOLDING OF BREAD.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I WILL TAKE 4 CONTAINERS WITH LIDS AND PUT A PIECE OF
WHITE BREAD IN EACH ONE. THEN, I WILL USE A 1/2 TEASPOON
AND PUT 1 1/2 TEASPOONS OF WATER ON EACH PIECE OF BREAD.
THEN, I WILL PUT LIDS ON THEM AND NUMBER THEM FROM 1 TO 4. I
WILL PUT #1 IN THE REFRIGERATOR AT 38 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, #2
IN A CUPBOARD AT 78 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, #3 IN THE
REFRIGERATOR VENT AT 83 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, AND #4 IN THE
GARAGE AT 65-85 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. FINALLY, I WILL CHECK
EACH ONE FOR 14 DAYS.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
ON THE SECOND DAY, #4 MOLDED IN THE GARAGE. ON THE THIRD
DAY, #2 IN THE CUPBOARD AND #3 IN THE VENT MOLDED. OUT OF
ALL THE 14 DAYS, #1 IN THE REFRIGERATOR NEVER MOLDED.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
I ACCEPT MY HYPOTHESIS WHICH STATES THAT TEMPERATURE WILL
AFFECT THE MOLDING OF BREAD BECAUSE #1 (REFRIGERATOR) NEVER
MOLDED. THEREFORE, I ALSO CONCLUDE THAT IT TAKES HEAT,
DARKNESS, AND MOISTURE FOR MOLD TO GROW.
WATERING OF PLANT LIFE
STUDENT AUTHOR: MICHELLE REAGAN
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 5
TEACHER: MRS. ERKEL, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT LIQUID WILL MAKE THE PLANT LIVE LONGER.
MY HYPOTHESIS STATES THAT I THINK THE TYPE OF LIQUID USED TO
WATER A PLANT WILL AFFECT THE LIFE OF THE PLANT.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I BOUGHT 3 PLANTS OF THE SAME DEGREE OF HEALTHINESS.
THE PLANTS WERE MUMS. NEXT, I SAT THEM OUTSIDE ON THE BACK
PORCH. EVERY MORNING, I WATERED EACH PLANT WITH 1 CUP OF
LIQUID. I WATERED ONE WITH ORANGE JUICE, ONE WITH MILK, AND
ONE WITH COCA-COLA. I DID THE SAME FOR 8 DAYS.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
AFTER 8 DAYS, I EXAMINED EACH PLANT AND OBSERVED THE
FOLLOWING:
COCA-COLA: THE LEAVE WERE VERY BROWN AND HAD SHRIVELED UP.
NONE OF THE BUDS HAD OPENED. THE FLOWERS HAD DARKENED. THE
LEAVES AT THE BOTTOM WERE THE BROWNEST.
ORANGE JUICE: THE LEAVES WERE NOT AS BROWN. THEY HAD NOT
SHRIVELED UP AS MUCH.
MILK: THE PLANT HAD SHOWN NO CHANGE. IT LOOKED NORMAL.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
I FOUND THAT MILK WAS THE BEST LIQUID FOR WATERING PLANTS
OUT OF THE 3 THAT I USED. I ACCEPT MY HYPOTHESIS THAT
STATED I THINK THE TYPE OF LIQUID WILL AFFECT THE LIFE OF
THE PLANT. THIS IS PROBABLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT COCA-COLA
AND ORANGE JUICE ARE VERY ACIDIC.
PARAKEET EXPERIMENT
STUDENT AUTHOR: THOMAS DYER
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 5
TEACHER: CHERIE ERKEL, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANT TO KNOW IF A PARAKEET WILL PREFER CLEAR WATER MORE
THAN COLORED WATER DURING A THREE DAY PERIOD. I THINK THAT
THE PARAKEET WILL PREFER CLEAR WATER MORE THAN COLORED WATER
DURING A THREE DAY PERIOD.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, FILL BOTH FEEDER CONTAINERS WITH WATER. THEN, PUTP
FOUR DROPS OF FOOD COLORING INTO ONE OF THE CONTAINERS.
AFTER THAT, PLACE THE TWO CONTAINERS INTO THE PARAKEET'S
CAGE. FINALLY, OBSERVE THE AMOUNT OF THE WATER IN EACH
CONTAINER THAT THE PARAKEET DRINKS.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
IN MY OBSERVATION, THE PARAKEET DRANK HALF OF ALL THE CLEAR
WATER AND DID NOT DRINK ANY OF THE COLORED WATER.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
MY HYPOTHESIS WAS PROVEN TO BE TRUE. THE PARAKEET DID DRINK
MORE CLEAR WATER THAN COLORED WATER OVER A THREE DAY PERIOD.
DOES WEIGHT AFFECT HOW FAST AN OBJECT FALLS?
STUDENT AUTHOR: BRIAN DANAHY
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: ELLEN MARINO, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANTED TO FIND OUT IF THE WEIGHT OF AN OBJECT AFFECTS ITS
RATE OF DESCENT. MY HYPOTHESIS STATED THAT TWO OBJECTS OF
THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE, BUT DIFFERENT WEIGHT, WILL HIT THE
GROUND AT THE SAME TIME.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I WROTE MY STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, DID A REVIEW OF
LITERATURE, AND STATED MY HYPOTHESIS. TO DO MY PROJECT, I
GOT TWO IDENTICAL COFFEE CANS. ONE I FILLED COMPLETELY WITH
WATER AND THE OTHER I FILLED WITH AN INCH OF WATER. NEITHER
CAN WAS SO LIGHT AS TO BE AFFECTED MUCH BY WIND RESISTANCE.
I DROPPED BOTH OF THEM FROM EXACTLY THE SAME HEIGHT AT
EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. I RECORDED MY DATA ON MY DATA
COLLECTION SHEET. I REPEATED THE PROCESS FIVE MORE TIMES.
NEXT, I ANALYZED MY DATA, REJECTED OR ACCEPTED MY
HYPOTHESIS, AND FINALLY WROTE MY ANALYSIS OF DATA AND
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
THE LIGHT CAN AND THE HEAVY CAN HIT THE GROUND AT THE SAME
TIME AS FAR AS I COULD SEE ON DROPS 1,2, AND 3. ON DROPS 4,
5, AND 6 THEY HIT AT THE SAME TIME ALSO.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
IN CONCLUSION, BECAUSE THE CANS HIT THE GROUND AT THE SAME
TIME EVERY TIME, I ACCEPT MY HYPOTHESIS WHICH STATED THAT
TWO OBJECTS OF THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE BUT DIFFERENT WEIGHT,
WILL HIT THE GROUND AT THE SAME TIME. GRAVITY SEEM TO PULL
OBJECTS TO THE GROUND AT A CONSTANT SPEED REGARDLESS OF
THEIR WEIGHT.
GROWTH OF PLANTS IN DIFFERENT LIGHTS
STUDENT AUTHOR: BILL DONKERVOET
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: ELLEN MARINO, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANTED TO FIND OUT IF DIFFERENT KINDS OF LIGHT AFFECT
PLANT GROWTH. MY HYPOTHESIS STATES THAT THE PLANTS GROWN IN
THE FLUORESCENT LIGHT WILL GROW THE TALLEST.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I WROTE MY STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. THEN, I WROTE THE
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND DEVELOPED MY HYPOTHESIS. I BOUGHT
NINE HAWAIIAN TOMATO PLANTS. I USED A FLUORESCENT LIGHT, AN
INCANDESCENT LIGHT, AND THE SUN. I PLACED THREE PLANTS IN
EACH BOX WITH A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LIGHT IN EACH BOX. I
RECORDED HOW TALL THE PLANTS IN EACH BOX GREW EVERY OTHER
DAY FOR TWELVE DAYS. I THEN ANALYZED THE DATA.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
MY PLANTS WERE ABOUT 14 CM. TALL WHEN I BOUGHT THEM. THE
PLANTS IN THE FLUORESCENT LIGHT GREW THE TALLEST TO AN
AVERAGE HEIGHT OF 18.5 CM.. THE PLANTS IN THE INCANDESCENT
LIGHT SHRIVELLED UP TO AN AVERAGE HEIGHT OF 13 CM.. THE
PLANTS IN THE SUN GREW TO AN AVERAGE HEIGHT OF 15.5 CM..
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
THE PLANTS IN THE FLUORESCENT LIGHT GREW THE TALLEST AND THE
PLANTS IN THE INCANDESCENT LIGHT WERE THE SHORTEST.
THEREFORE, I ACCEPTED MY HYPOTHESIS WHICH STATED THAT THE
PLANT IN THE FLUORESCENT LIGHT WOULD GROW THE TALLEST.
DON'T BREAK THE EGG
STUDENT AUTHOR: PAUL CORSO
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: ELLEN MARINO, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANT TO FIND OUT WHICH MATERIAL (PAPER, DIRT, OR
STYROFOAM) ABSORBS SHOCK THE BEST. MY HYPOTHESIS STATES
THAT STYROFOAM IS THE BEST SHOCK ABSORBER.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I STATED THE PURPOSE OF MY RESEARCH, REVIEWED THE
LITERATURE, AND STATED MY HYPOTHESIS. I THEN GOT THREE ONE
POUND COFFEE CANS. I FILLED ONE HALFWAY WITH PAPER, ANOTHER
HALFWAY WITH DIRT, AND THE THIRD HALFWAY WITH STYROFOAM. I
THEN PUT A RAW EGG IN EACH AND PUT A LID ON THE CANS.
NEXT, I DROPPED EACH CAN THE SAME DISTANCE AND CHECKED TO
SEE IF THE EGG WAS BROKEN. I THEN RECORDED THE DATA. I
REPEATED THE EXPERIMENT THREE TIMES. I ANALYZED THE DATA,
ACCEPTED OR REJECTED MY HYPOTHESIS, AND WROTE A SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSION.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
I FOUND THAT THE EGGS IN A COFFEE CAN PACKED WITH PAPER
DROPPED FROM 150" CRACKED TWICE AND BROKE ONCE. IN THE
STYROFOAM TEST, THE EGGS CRACKED TWICE AND REMAINED INTACT
ONCE. IN THE DIRT, THE EGGS BROKE TWICE AND CRACKED ONCE.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
IN CONCLUSION, BECAUSE THE STYROFOAM TEST ABSORBED SHOCK THE
BEST, I ACCEPT MY HYPOTHESIS WHICH STATES THAT STYROFOAM IS
THE BEST SHOCK ABSORBER.
DOES THE ANGLE OF THE WINGS AFFECT THE FLIGHT OF A PAPER
AIRPLANE?
STUDENT AUTHOR: TODD EGGENBERGER
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: ELLEN MARINO, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANTED TO FIND OUT HOW WINGS AFFECTED THE FLIGHT OF A
PAPER AIRPLANE, WHETHER IT MADE THE FLIGHT BETTER OR WORSE.
MY HYPOTHESIS STATED THAT A PLANE WITH LEVEL WINGS WOULD FLY
THE FARTHEST.
II. METHODOLOGY
TO DO MY PROJECT, I BUILT THREE PAPER AIRPLANES. ONE HAD
LEVEL WINGS, ONE HAD ITS WINGS SLANTED UP, AND THE OTHER
PAPER AIRPLANE HAD WINGS SLANTED DOWN. THEY ALL HAD PAPER
CLIPS (THE SAME SIZE) ON THEIR NOSES. I THREW THEM ALL INTO
THE AIR GENTLY. I RECORDED HOW FAR THEY FLEW. I DID THIS
SEVEN TIMES.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
THREE EXPERIMENTAL PAPER AIRPLANES WERE THROWN AT THE SAME
STRENGTH SEVEN TIMES EACH. THE FIRST FIVE TIMES, OR TRIALS,
WERE THROWN WITHIN TEST AREA 1, ON THE GROUND. THE SIXTH
AND SEVENTH TRIALS WERE THROWN WITHIN TEST AREA 2, OFF OF A
BALCONY. IN TEST AREA 1, PLANE 1 FLEW AN AVERAGE OF 379
CENTIMETERS, PLANE 2 FLEW AN AVERAGE OF 237 CENTIMETERS AND
PLANE 3 FLEW AN AVERAGE OF 284 CENTIMETERS. IN TEST AREA 2,
PLANE 1 FLEW AN AVERAGE OF 582 CENTIMETERS, PLANE 2 FLEW AN
AVERAGE OF 122 CENTIMETERS AND PLANE 3 FLEW AN AVERAGE OF
476 CENTIMETERS.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
THE PLANE WITH THE WINGS SLANTED DOWN FLEW THE BEST. THE
PLANE WITH THE LEVEL WINGS FLEW SECOND BEST. THE PLANE WITH
WINGS SLANTED UP FLEW THE WORST. I REJECT MY HYPOTHESIS
WHICH STATED THAT THE PLANE WITH LEVEL WINGS WOULD FLY THE
FARTHEST.
DENSITY AND BUOYANCY
STUDENT AUTHOR: LAURA LOWE
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: ELLEN MARINO, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE COMPOSITION AND DENSITY OF A DRINK
IN A CAN HAS TO DO WITH ITS BUOYANCY IN WATER. I KNOW THAT
A REGULAR COKE IS DENSER THAN A DIET COKE BECAUSE SUGAR IS
DISSOVLED IN THE REGULAR COKE. MY HYPOTHESIS STATES THAT
REGULAR COKE WILL SINK AND A CAN OF DIET COKE WILL FLOAT IN
A BUCKET OF WATER.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I STATED MY PURPOSE, REVIEWED MY LITERATURE, AND
WROTE MY HYPOTHESIS. THEN, I PUT A CAN OF CLASSIC COKE IN 1
1/2 GALLONS OF WATER AND RECORDED WHETHER IT SANK OR
FLOATED. NEXT, I PUT A CAN OF DIET COKE IN THE BUCKET OF
WATER AND RECORDED WHETHER IT SANK OR FLOATED. I REPLICATED
THIS 6 TIMES WITH DIFFERENT CANS. FINALLY, I ANALYZED MY
DATA, ACCEPTED OR REJECTED MY HYPOTHESIS, AND WROTE MY
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
THE DATA I COLLECTED SHOWED THAT ALL SIX CANS OF DIET COKE
FLOATED AND ALL SIX CANS OF CLASSIC COKE SANK.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
ALL SIX CANS OF DIET COKE FLOATED AND ALL SIX CANS OF
CLASSIC COKE SANK; THEREFORE, I ACCEPTED MY HYPOTHESIS WHICH
STATED THAT THE CLASSIC COKES WILL SINK AND THE DIET COKES
WILL FLOAT. THE CLASSIC COKES SANK BECAUSE THE SUGAR IN
THEM MADE THEM MORE DENSE.
CAN MY PARENTS IDENTIFY DIFFERENT COLAS?
STUDENT AUTHOR: ALAN MISLOVE
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: ELLEN MARINO, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANTED TO FIND OUT IF MY FAMILY CAN IDENTIFY A PARTICULAR
COLA OR SOFT DRINK WITHOUT SEEING IT. MY HYPOTHESIS STATES
THAT MY FAMILY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF SOFT DRINKS.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I WROTE MY STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. THEN, I WROTE MY
REVIEW OF LITERATURE. AFTER THAT, I DEVELOPED MY
HYPOTHESIS. THEN, I BOUGHT 3 DIFFERENT COLAS. NEXT, I
BLINDFOLDED MY PARENTS. THEN, I LET THEM TASTE ALL THREE
COLAS. THEN, THEY TOLD ME WHICH COLA IS WHICH. FINALLY, I
CONDUCTED AN ANALYSIS OF MY DATA, ACCEPTED OR REJECTED MY
HYPOTHESIS, AND WROTE MY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
I FOUND IN THREE OUT OF THE FOUR TIMES THAT I DID THE
EXPERIMENT, MY PARENTS MISTOOK COKE AND PEPSI FOR EACH
OTHER, BUT ALWAYS CORRECTLY GUESSED DR. PEPPER. THE FOURTH
TIME THAT I DID MY EXPERIMENT, MY DAD CORRECTLY GUESSED THEM
ALL.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
MY PARENTS IDENTIFIED THE COLAS CORRECTLY ONLY ONCE, SO I
WILL ACCEPT MY HYPOTHESIS FOR COKE AND FOR PEPSI, BUT I
REJECT MY HYPOTHESIS FOR DR. PEPPER. MY HYPOTHESIS STATED
THAT MY PARENTS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE DIFFERENT
COLAS.
!!POPCORN!!
STUDENT AUTHOR: BRITTEN LIVAUDAIS
SCHOOL:MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: ELLEN MARINO, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHICH NON-MICROWAVEABLE POPCORN,
POPS-RITE, ORVILLE REDENBACHER, OR BEEHIVE GOURMET, WOULD
HAVE MORE KERNELS THAT POPPED. MY HYPOTHESIS STATED THAT
ORVILLE REDENBACHER WOULD HAVE THE MOST POPPED KERNELS.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I WROTE A REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND A HYPOTHESIS.
THEN, I COUNTED OUT 200 KERNELS OF ORVILLE REDENBACHER,
POPS-RITE, AND BEEHIVE POPCORN SEPARATELY. I PUT 1 KIND OF
POPCORN IN THE POPPER AND POPPED IT UNTIL NO MORE KERNELS
POPPED. THEN, I COUNTED THE NUMBER OF UNPOPPED KERNELS AND
RECORDED MY DATA. I COOKED ALL THREE IN AN AIR POPPER, 3
TIMES PER EACH KIND OF POPCORN. I THEN ANALYZED MY DATA AND
ACCEPTED OR REJECTED MY HYPOTHESIS AND WROTE A SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSION.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
ORVILLE REDENBACHER HAD AN AVERAGE OF 127 KERNELS POPPED AND
72 UNPOPPED. POPS-RITE HAD AN AVERAGE OF 189 KERNELS POPPED
AND 14 UNPOPPED. BEEHIVE HAD AN AVERAGE OF 193 POPPED
KERNELS AND 7 UNPOPPED.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
BEEHIVE AND POPS-RITE HAD FEWER KERNELS UNPOPPED THAN
ORVILLE REDENBACHER. THEREFORE, I REJECTED MY HYPOTHESIS
WHICH STATED THAT ORVILLE REDENBACHER WOULD HAVE FEWER
UNPOPPED KERNELS THAN THE OTHER TWO BRANDS OF POPCORN.
AEROBIE VERSUS FRISBEE
STUDENT AUTHOR: PAUL KUEHNE
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: ELLEN MARINO, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANTED TO FIND OUT HOW FAR AN AEROBE FLIES COMPARED TO A
FRISBEE. I KNOW THAT THE AEROBE IS MORE AERODYNAMIC THAN
THE FRISBEE. MY HYPOTHESIS STATED THAT THE AEROBIE WILL GO
FARTHER THAN THE FRISBEE.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I STATED MY PURPOSE, REVIEWED THE LITERATURE, AND
STATED MY HYPOTHESIS. TO DO MY PROJECT, I THREW AN AEROBE
AND A FRISBEE EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THREE TIMES EACH. I
MEASURED HOW FAR EACH ONE WENT, ANALYZED MY DATA, ACCEPTED
OR REJECTED MY HYPOTHESIS, AND WROTE A SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSION.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
THE FRISBEE FLEW 18.28 M., 15.53 M., AND 13.71 M. FOR AN
AVERAGE OF 15.84 M.. THE AEROBE WENT 22.85 M., 69.46 M.,
AND 40.21 M. FOR AN AVERAGE OF 22.13 M..
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
ON AVERAGE, THE AEROBE WENT 6.29 M. FARTHER THAN A FRISBEE.
THEREFORE, I CAN ACCEPT MY HYPOTHESIS WHICH STATED THAT THE
AEROBE WOULD GO FARTHER THAN A FRISBEE.
DO OIL AND ANTIFREEZE POLLUTANTS AFFECT THE ABILITY OF WATER
TO PERCOLATE?
STUDENT AUTHOR: JEFFERY MISTICH
SCHOOL: MANDEVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA
GRADE: 6
TEACHER: ELLEN MARINO, MED
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS
I WANTED TO FIND OUT IF POLLUTION AFFECTS THE ABILITY OF
WATER TO PERCOLATE THROUGH SOIL. MY HYPOTHESIS STATED THAT
POLLUTION REDUCES THE ABILITY OF WATER TO PERCOLATE THROUGH
THE SOIL.
II. METHODOLOGY
FIRST, I DID MY REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF
PURPOSE. THEN, I STATED MY HYPOTHESIS. NEXT, I BUILT TWO
FILTERS. I GOT TWO PLASTIC JARS WITH METAL CAPS AND POKED
HOLES IN THE CAPS. THEN I CUT THE BOTTOMS OF THE JARS OFF.
THEN, I PUT LARGE GRAVEL IN THE FLIPPED OVER JARS. I PUT AN
INCH OF MUD OVER THE GRAVEL AND THEN I PUT AN INCH OF SAND
OVER THE MUD. THEN, I CONDUCTED THE EXPERIMENT. IN ONE
FILTER, I POURED TAP WATER. IN THE OTHER, I POURED A
MIXTURE OF OIL, ANTIFREEZE, AND WATER. I COMPARED THE
AMOUNT AND COLOR OF THE WATER AFTER IT HAD FILTERED THROUGH.
I RECORDED THE RESULTS OF MY EXPERIMENT ON MY DATA
COLLECTION SHEET. NEXT, I ANALYZED MY DATA, ACCEPTED OR
REJECTED MY HYPOTHESIS AND WROTE MY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
III. ANALYSIS OF DATA
ALL FOUR CUPS OF TAP WATER THROUGH FILTER #1 CAME OUT AND
WERE CLEAN. ONLY TWO OF THE FOUR CUPS OF OIL, ANTIFREEZE,
AND WATER THAT WENT THROUGH FILTER #2 CAME OUT AND IT WAS
VERY DIRTY. THE POLLUTED WATER CLOGGED THE SOIL FILTER UP
AND PREVENTED PERCOLATION.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
ALL THE TAP WATER PERCOLATED THROUGH THE FILTER. ONLY HALF
OF THE POLLUTED WATER FILTERED THROUGH. THEREFORE, I
ACCEPTED MY HYPOTHESIS WHICH STATED THAT POLLUTION REDUCES
THE ABILITY OF WATER TO PERCOLATE THROUGH THE SOIL.
© 1993 John I. Swang, Ph.D.