Learning packs

Free / Grades 4-6, with reading and number support

Falling Paper Lab

How can we explain a difference in falling time without claiming more than our evidence shows?

4 flexible sessions / about 140 minutes including practice / science, math, reading and art

Suggested rhythm: two sessions a week for two weeks. Week 1: plan and calculate. Week 2: compare repeated trials and explain. Pause or spread sessions out as needed.

Reading, watching and paper activities are free. Parents and instructors can save a collection; scheduling it for a student requires Plus or Lifetime. No upload is required.

Open project notebook

Before you begin

Compare decimal numbers, subtract and divide with support, and distinguish a prediction from an observation. A calculator, pointing or an adult reading aloud is welcome. The linked lessons introduce air resistance and average speed.

A desk-based investigation. Use the invented records below; no dropping experiment is required. Do not drop devices or heavy objects, climb furniture, lean from windows or build a vacuum container. These sample times are not measurements you made. Keep any separate real observations clearly labeled.

Materials

Choose the support that fits

What good evidence looks like

These are discussion criteria, not a new automatic score. Existing lesson and worksheet records keep their own subjects. Checking off a planned task does not demonstrate mastery or add a second grade.

Session 1 / about 35 minutes

Change one feature, keep a fair comparison

Goal: Plan a shape comparison that does not also change the starting distance or amount of paper.

Preparation / about 5 minutes of adult support: Have journal 1 ready. Use the supplied drawings and records; no physical drop is needed. Start a first explanation that you will revisit in session 4.

Gravity pulls both shapes downward. Air can resist their motion. Crumpling a sheet changes its shape without adding paper. To investigate shape, compare equal sheets and the same starting distance, release method and indoor air conditions. A flat sheet released higher than the ball would change two features. Even a careful comparison needs repeated trials. A prediction is what you expect before looking at the results.

Teaching diagram contrasts flat and crumpled paper and the opposing directions of gravity and air resistance.
Teaching example, separate from the journal investigation.

A pretend researcher changes the shape and turns on a fan. Ask what could explain a changed time. How would keeping the air conditions alike improve that comparison?

  1. Falling objects and air resistance / about 5 minutes
  2. Gravity and Falling Paper / about 10 minutes
  3. Plan the paper comparison / about 20 minutes

Fun fact: Shape can change drag even when the amount of material has not changed. Shape is not the same quantity as mass. Source

S3U / Falling Paper Lab / Journal 1 of 4

One change, several controls

Pretend setup: equal sheets of the same paper, one flat and one crumpled, released without a push through a vertical distance of 0.60 m in still indoor air. Keep this setup for the later invented records.

Session 1 evidence
FeatureChange or keep alike? Why?
Paper shape
Amount and type of paper
Starting distance and release method
Air conditions

My prediction before reading the times, and a possible reason:

Which unfair comparison would make my explanation less convincing?

Session 2 / about 35 minutes

A time is not a speed

Goal: Calculate an average speed and distinguish it from a final or constant speed.

Preparation / about 5 minutes of adult support: Have journal 2 and a calculator if useful. Read m as meters, s as seconds and m/s as meters per second. Decimals can be calculated together.

For a straight downward trip, average speed is distance divided by elapsed time. A worked example is 0.60 m divided by 0.40 s, which is 1.50 m/s. This describes the whole trip, not the speed at its last instant. For the same distance, a longer time means a smaller average speed. Use the exact invented values in the journal to practice; their neat numbers do not make real measurements exact.

Worked example: 0.60 meters divided by 0.40 seconds gives average speed 1.5 meters per second, not final speed.
Teaching example, separate from the journal investigation.

Ask whether an average of 1.50 m/s proves the object moved at 1.50 m/s at every instant. What extra observations would you need to know how the speed changed?

  1. Time a fall and compare fairly / about 5 minutes
  2. Falling Speeds: Measure Average Speed / about 10 minutes
  3. Compare two invented trips / about 20 minutes

Fun fact: A falling object can keep moving even when opposing forces balance. Constant speed means no speed change, not no motion. Source

S3U / Falling Paper Lab / Journal 2 of 4

Distance divided by time

Independent invented example: flat paper travels straight down 0.60 m in 1.20 s; crumpled paper travels 0.60 m in 0.40 s. Calculate average speed, not final speed. These are not observations you made.

Session 2 evidence
Shape / distanceElapsed time (s)Average speed (m/s)
Flat / 0.60 m1.20
Crumpled / 0.60 m0.40

Which trip has the greater average speed? Use both distance and time in your explanation.

Why can these two whole-trip numbers not tell us the speed at the last instant?

Session 3 / about 35 minutes

Keep every trial, not just the favorite

Goal: Compare repeated times and explain a limit that repetition does not remove.

Preparation / about 7 minutes of adult support: Bring journals 1 and 2. Copy all six invented times into your comparison; do not quietly discard a value because it differs from your prediction.

Repeating a measurement can reveal variation. For a mean, add all the times and divide by the number of trials. For a range, subtract the smallest time from the largest. A separate example of 0.42, 0.38 and 0.40 s has mean 0.40 s and range 0.04 s. Repetition does not fix every problem: consistently using the wrong starting distance could affect every trial. Keep units and describe limits instead of calling an average the exact truth.

Separate teaching example lists three invented times: 0.42, 0.38 and 0.40 seconds.
Teaching example, separate from the journal investigation.

Ask why choosing only the quickest flat trial and slowest crumpled trial could hide useful evidence. A suspicious record should be labeled and investigated, not secretly removed.

  1. Summarize all the trial times / about 15 minutes
  2. Read an overconfident claim / about 10 minutes
  3. Explain a better next comparison / about 10 minutes

Fun fact: Measurement uncertainty can have several sources. Variation across repeated readings is useful evidence, but it is not the only source to consider. Source

S3U / Falling Paper Lab / Journal 3 of 4

Repeated records and their limits

Invented trials, all over 0.60 m with the session 1 setup. Flat times: 1.10, 1.20, 1.30 s. Crumpled times: 0.38, 0.40, 0.42 s. Means and ranges summarize these examples only.

Session 3 evidence
ShapeMean time (s)Range (s)
Flat
Crumpled

Use all three times per shape. Show your addition and subtraction, then compare the two sets.

Rewrite "Crumpled paper always falls exactly three times faster." What can these records support, and what can they not establish?

Session 4 / about 35 minutes

Build an explanation that earns its claim

Goal: Present a revised claim, evidence and limitation without confusing a model with a measurement.

Preparation / about 8 minutes of adult support: Bring the first explanation, all journals and one poster sheet. An adult may listen or read; the learner can also rehearse privately. Nobody is monitoring live.

Your poster needs a question, setup, all trial times, a careful claim and a limitation. An explanation about air resistance connects the results to a model; the table alone does not measure drag. In a no-air model, objects released from rest at the same height in the same gravitational field have the same falling acceleration, regardless of their masses. That is a different situation from our invented in-air records. Revise your first explanation rather than hiding it.

No-air model shows smaller and larger masses released together from rest at the same height, with equal gravitational acceleration.
Teaching example, separate from the journal investigation.

Ask which sentence reports the supplied data and which explains it. Then ask what would have to be checked before making a claim about all paper shapes or every real drop.

  1. Design an evidence poster / about 15 minutes
  2. Present and revise the explanation / about 15 minutes
  3. Choose the next question / about 5 minutes

Fun fact: Removing air changes the model: drag is absent, but gravity still acts. A vacuum is not the same as a place without gravity. Source

S3U / Falling Paper Lab / Journal 4 of 4

My claim, evidence and limit

Use the invented records, not invented personal experience. Present on paper, aloud or by pointing. Keep your first explanation and make a revised one; no upload or public presentation is needed.

Session 4 evidence
Poster sectionWhat evidence belongs here?
Question and fair setup
All trial times with units
Claim and possible explanation
Limit and next question

What did I change in my first explanation, and which evidence made me reconsider?

What question did I receive or ask myself? How would I investigate it fairly?

What changed in your explanation?

Show your evidence, explain one revision, and choose a question to investigate next. You can keep everything on paper.

Optional: record actual offline learning in Learning Records. Keep reported minutes separate from website time. For an assigned pack, use your existing daily tasks; this page does not award additional completion credit.

Sources