A couple of days ago, the Wall Street Journal did an article entitled “Why We’re Failing Math and Science: A panel of experts talks about what’s wrong with our education system—and how to fix it“

One of the experts they interviewed was Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City Department of Education. He said the following: “we’ve got to use technology differently. In any field but ours, if you fell asleep 50 years ago and woke up today, you wouldn’t recognize what’s going on. In education, if you fell asleep 50 years ago, you still have the same discussions.”

While classrooms have changed, the major change seems to be whiteboards for chalkboards and not big technology gains. The power of technology has not been used to greatly improve math and science education. Nor has technology been fully utilized to make it easier for teachers to help students learn and assess learning. Joel Klien suggests New York City schools are starting this process. As a former New York City teacher (Lehman High School in THE Bronx) I hope he is right, and that other school districts fully embrace technologies, like Adaptive Curriculum, that can help all students learn science and math.

We all want to avoid having children get hurt doing school science. We also don’t want teachers to avoid doing hands-on science because of fears related to safety issues in the science classroom. For the elementary school classroom there are a couple of valuable resources that can help teachers and administrators develop safer practices for science instruction.

These are:

Science and Safety: It’s Elementary (http://www.csss-science.org/downloads/scisaf_cal.pdf)

And

Safety in the Elementary (K-6) Science Classroom (http://membership.acs.org/c/ccs/pubs/K-6_art_2.pdf)

Many of these practices have been written with common sense in mind. And if you are safety minded, you are on the lookout for all the potential things that can go wrong and ways to prevent these accidents. Unfortunately, K-5 classrooms would not have some of this safety equipment, such as eyewash fountains, fume hoods, and safety showers, and probably most middle school science classrooms would come up short in these areas.

While going all virtual to avoid safety problems may be tempting, a more pragmatic solution is to avoid dangerous hands-on materials and be very careful to try science activities before hand, and monitor student behavior.

Technology For K-6 Science Safety

While technology is often thought of as electronic stuff, a better and wider view is that it is any human made products that make our lives better or safer. With this in mind, I present my top ten safety technologies.

1. Teacher Developed Safety Rules Contract: A teacher and students who are safety minded is probably the best defense against accidents. There should be no toleration of inappropriate behavior when doing hands-on science.

2. Goggles: Chemical splash safety goggles should be worn whenever what you are working with has the potential to hurt or damage eyes. Please don’t adopt the view, such as, “I use ammonia at home without goggles, so it is okay to use it in school without goggles.” An adult can decide not to use goggles at home and it is at their peril. If a teacher decides not to have students wear goggles with materials that could harm eyes, and eyes are damaged, the teacher will probably be held culpable, as will the administrators, the school, and the district.

3. Disposable Nitrile Gloves: From dissections to handling chemicals, these can prevent problems. And if a student is bleeding for any reason, an adult should put on gloves to help with the situation.

4. Locked Chemical Cabinet

5. Fire blanket and extinguisher

6. First aid kit

7. Proper waste containers

8. Rubber covered muslin aprons

9. Safety posters and signs

10. Non-mercury thermometers

Teachers should be urged to provide hands-on experiences for their students. But teachers are also responsible for the safety of their students.

I am at the NYSCATE Metro Conference, in Rye, NY. I grew up about 45 minutes from here but I forgot that it is still cold in mid-May. But of course, everything is relative, and relative to Arizona almost everywhere else is cooler.

This is the nyscate-critical-thinking  presentation I am  doing today. 

Angie, one of my science methods students shared this article with me. ScienceDaily (2009-03-28) — Self-led, self-structured inquiry may be the best method to train scientists at the college level and beyond, but it’s not the ideal way for all high school students to prepare for college science. That’s according to findings of a new study. See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090326114415.htm#

Video game flying the Wright brother's glider

It is always exciting to experience the sites and sounds of an NSTA conference. From my first science teacher conference, it was an awakening for me to find out that there are others like me who share my passion for science and education but who did not have an abundance of money to buy materials and who feel time compressed—despite perceptions that teaches have a lot of free time.

I brought my family along for this trip because it corresponded with my sons’ spring break from school. Okay, I admit, I probably wouldn’t have taken them to New Orleans if not for these reasons. I do think, however, exposure to other cultures is a good thing, and New Orleans’ has more than its share of culture. We were even able to go to a locals only crawfish boil (see photo). That my sons might be too young to appreciate New Orleans culture could be suggested by both of them liking the cool stuff in the conference exhibitor’s hall better than any other part of their visit. They were particularly taken by the science curiosities of “Steve Splangler Science” store, where the energetic folks did some intriguing square bubble demonstrations for them and then they were able to activities including tossing bubbles with gloves and making gummy worms. They also liked Flinn Scientific where they watched an engaging rep make foam, just like the stuff I use to close holes in and around my house. Now, they are flying home with a bag full of free materials from Insect Lore including two butterfly larvae that should form a chrysalis in two weeks.

It seems that the giving of t-shirts has achieved greater popularity. I don’t recall, in my first ten years of conference going, ever getting a t-shirt. Then the tech folks started giving away t-shirts and now so are the science folks. My wife doesn’t understand my interest in getting t-shirts, and she has already placed two of them (from Learning.com) in the piles of stuff to give to our son’s teachers. But there is one shirt I intend to keep; it is by far the nicest t-shirt I received, and it was a gray-background and white lettering SPARK t-shirt. I received it from Pasco when I attended a presentation on their SPARK system. Pasco seems to have a great understanding of the needs of a science teacher! So often science technology companies seem like they are devoted to the AP physics or chemistry teacher, who doesn’t have a family, social life, and is not pursing coursework. These rare folks might be able to take the time to figure out how to use complicated tech stuff to do one lab, but most regular teachers find it daunting. SPARK appears to be a solution that is easy to implement, cost effective, and has lots of uses. It acts like a mini-computer with a monitor, and it has its primary function—using probeware. So the yearbook teacher won’t want to borrow your class set!

“Ribosomes make protein.                                                                        A GUEST BLOG

Lysosomes keep it clean.

Endoplasmic Reticulum

transports things to and from. 

Nucleus runs the show.

Keeps control don’t you know!”

The kids wouldn’t stop rapping “Made of Cells”, an educational song I threw together to reinforce vocabulary, even a week after the exam.  It actually got to the point where I had to settle them down each time they walked into my classroom. 

Auditory comprises the “A” in Fleming’s VARK model for different styles of learning (others are Visual, Reading and Kinesthetic) and can explain why we remember things more easily if it encompasses a rhyme or a melody.   Recall when you were first introduced to the alphabet song: “a, b, c, d, eee, eff, geeee…”   It was easy to memorize 26 separate sequence specific letters as a preschooler when it took the form of music.  This technique is also implemented in learning the names of the continents (sung to the tune of “Frère Jacques” a.k.a. “Where is Thumbkin?”):

“There are se-ven, there are se-ven,

con-tin-ents, con-tin-ents:

Europe Asia Af-ri-ca

 North and South Amer-i-ca

Austral-i-a, Antarc-tic-a.

Advertisers have been using the power of jingles for decades in both private

“You deserve a-break-to-daaayy.”

and public sectors:

 “Be…All That You-Can-Be.”

Many scientists credit neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) for how the mind processes information.  The theory states that we can potentially incorporate all of our senses during cognition of a word, idea, or set of specific tasks.  The more senses bombarded through VARK when attaining that piece of information, the easier for it to “stick” in the brain and recall later.

Whether you call it an earworm, a jingle, or a catchy tune, using educational rap in the classroom is extremely effective.  This is especially true in a subject area like science where much of the terminology is derived from Greek and Latin.  So start formulating rhymes in your classroom today so your students can memorize that:

“All plants and animals are made up of cells.

Each is made up of parts called organelles.

So tiny you need a microscope to see.

About 100 trillion cells make up you and me.”   

Guest Post by Joseph Ocando, who was an 8^th grade science teacher in New York City as a member of Teach for America.  He has started a business called Rhyme ‘n Learn.  His raps can be ordered from http://cdbaby.com/cd/rhymenlearn

With a partner, my secondary science methods students selected a tree and then combined their ample knowledge, creativity, and critical thinking and came up with several methods to determine the height of the tree.

Linda Dee and Karen Schedler were helping my students learn about Project Learning Tree (PLT) and its many science activities. My students now have the assignment to develop a lesson plan using a PLT activity and then teach a high school or middle school class using this lesson plan.

This class of students has already earned my respect for their knowledge, abilities, and great attitudes, but it was still exciting to see them apply what they know with their creativity and critical thinking. Indeed the process was just as important as the result. Their tree-height-measurement methods included (a) having a partner of known height stand by the tree and estimating how many of them it would take to reach the top of the tree; (b) measuring the shadow length of the partner and the tree and using ratios; (c) holding a vertical ruler up, with the partner at the tree, and using the marking of the ruler to determine ratios for the heights, and (d) comparing the tree height to a building and then counting brick segments on the building to determine height. Of course, if a protractor was on hand we could have used the distance from the tree, angle to the top of the tree, and some trigonometry to make this estimate.

The tree height estimates were compared to a value found by using clinometers. These nifty devices, we were told, give a pretty accurate reading. You measure off 66 feet and look through the viewer with one eye and line up a horizontal line with the other eye. There were two scales for viewing the height of the tree, one in feet and the other in meters.  In many cases, my students’ estimates were pretty close to the clinometers’ readings.

I was glad to see my students using metric measurements because we had talked about this before our spring break. My advice is to have their future students do all their measurements using the metric system and NEVER convert back into the imperial system. But with the “66 feet” distance and foot scale on the clinometer, it seems like our forestry colleagues, at least in the US, are not fully metrified. Prior to this, I had thought that the only people of science who were not completely immersed in the metric system were US meteorologists. It is obvious that some science traditions don’t change easily. 

As an educator who embraces the promise of technology, I believe that 2009 is an important milestone. Consider this statement: “the possibilities exist today for individualized instruction to a degree heretofore unimaginable. We stand at the brink of a vast revolution in teaching, learning, instruction, education… the computer makes possible teaching and learning that are suited to the momentary requirements of the individual human being.” Why are these words so relevant today? They were written by Robert Siedel in 1969, making 2009 a fortieth anniversary.

It is easy to forget that educational technology has been around for decades. As early as the 1950s, researchers were investigating the use of computers as tutors. By the late 1960s, there was abundant evidence in favor of computers. In 1972, a major review of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) was published that summarized ten studies with 10,000 total subjects; it concluded that computers were beneficial for students. In 1977, two important events coincided: Inexpensive  ”micro-computers” were first released, including the Commodore PET and Apple II. And the statistical technique of meta-analysis, which had been invented one year earlier, was first applied to CAI research.

All meta-analyses, including the first in 1977 and the dozens of others that followed, have reached the same conclusion: CAI is better than traditional instruction. This is true at every level (elementary, secondary, college, adult education) and in nearly every subject (science, math, social studies, accounting, woodworking, languages, etc.) The evidence is overwhelming. In almost 95% of statistically significant studies, CAI results in higher test scores. Plus, there are other benefits: students learn faster on computers and enjoy CAI more than traditional instruction.

Despite the obvious benefits of computers, they are not being used to teach students in school. Although computers are sometimes used to surf the Internet and type reports, they are never used to deliver the majority of curriculum in any course. This is not due to a lack of evidence; we have known since at least 1977 that CAI is better than traditional instruction. This raises a critical question: Why is the most effective educational technology ever invented not being used to instruct students in classrooms?

Today, in 2009, it is easy to get caught up in new innovations, especially for those of us who embrace technology. However, we should be mindful that no amount of innovation will usher in the age of educational technology because CAI was good enough more than 30 years ago. The barrier to instructing students effectively with computers is not technology; the barrier is will.

 Reference

Seidel, R. J. (1969). Is CAI Cost/Effective? The Right Question at the Wrong Time. Educational Technology, 9(5), 21-23. 

Article is by Jeremy Schneider, who I invited to submit an article after I read his book Chalkbored. Jeremy is a former high school chemistry teacher who is currently living in Canada. –PR

 

This blog focusing on using technology to improve science teaching and learning has been in existence since June 2008. The list of 2008 blog titles for Ed-tech-4-science with publishing dates are presented below. I made hotlinks for articles that I think classroom teachers of science would find most useful. Then I put the titles into Wordle to get the image below.

Probing Into New Experiences: Probeware, Displacement, and Science Learning, December 30, 2008

PowerPoint Science: Can PPTs help show the exciting side of science? December 28, 2008

Spore Revisited: Manure for Future Scientists, December 26, 2008

Seeking Analogies and Humor with the Net Generation: Charlie Bit My Finger, December 23, 2008

The Starch Test and This Blog: Photosynthesis, Science Education, and Technology, December 26, 2008

Virtual Distance-Time Graphs: Getting Up to Speed, December 16, 2008

Technology Conferences and Science Teachers: Fun & Learning, December 6, 2008

Long-Lost Lunar Pics and the Lunar Slamdown: Some Recent Space Science News, November 17, 2008

A Reader’s Question: Apollo “Hoax”, YouTube, and Fifth Grade Science, November 10, 2008

Chain Reaction, Science Education, and Literacy, November 6, 2008

Static Electricity and Happy Halloween, November 4, 2008

Philly Cheesesteaks and Technology for Science Education, October 26, 2008

Wordle: Seeing Science Words as Images, October, 22, 2008

WolfQuest: In Search of Missing Science and Fun, October, 2, 2008

The Circuit Construction Kit: Amping Up Explorations in Electricity September 29, 2009

Is SPORE a Bore that Promotes Science Misconceptions? September 11, 2008

Tyranny of Terminology: Science Vocabulary and Technology Help, September 10, 2008

YouTube and Science Teaching and Learning, August 23, 2008

Partnering for Shared Interactions: The Two-Mice Computer in Schools? August 19, 2008

Creature Creator’ as a Prelude to ‘Spore’: What Value to a Science Teacher? August 18, 2008

Elementary Science Education Software from the 1990s, August 16, 2008

Scientific Free Exploration in the Virtual Realm: People, planets and Orbits, August 7, 2008

Tangibles in the Balance: Physical Versus Virtual Science Experiments, August 6, 2008

Enhancing the Arizona Sun: Technology Misdirected, Critical Thinking, and Inquiry, July 18, 2008

Virtual Schools: Leading the Charge towards Change, July 15, 2008

The Activity Object: Terminology for Educators, July 14, 2008

Physical Versus Virtual Hands-On Science Experiences, July 7, 2008

An Army of Two, June 29, 2008

Electronic Screen Time, June 29, 2008

The One Computer Classroom, June 2, 2008

If you want good insights and data about why lectures are a lousy tool for learning, what the fundamental flaws in school systems are, and why students are not engaged Chalkbored (by Jeremy Scheider 2007, a former high school chemistry teacher) is a must read.

Schneider makes the point that all popular movies depict US secondary schools as weak or downright bad. While there are some good teachers that rise up, they do it against the bleakest of conditions (such as in Freedom Writers).

Savvy enough to avoid the “L” word (or lecture), teachers and administrators call them discussions. In Chapter 1, Scheider writes: “In a one-hour class, a teacher who speaks 87% of the time leaves eight minutes for students. If you divide this by thirty students, each student gets to speak for 16 seconds (and listen for 59 minutes and 44 seconds). If I had a conversation like that (it sounds like a really bad blind date), “discussion” would not be the first term to pop into my head—“lecture” or “nightmare” would be closer.”

Scheider weaves great factual information with lively narrative. He makes the point often that it isn’t the teachers’ fault; it is the system that pushes them into this mode. I agreed with many of his points because they are logical and data based.

Here are some points and questions he raises. See if you agree or disagree:

• If we want students to take high school math and science classes, why do we punish them by making these classes have the lowest average grades? (Example science course average = 2.68, while Physical Education is 3.34)
• “Grades should never be used unless followed by clear explanations and opportunities to correct mistakes.”
• The focus on Shakespearean literature and classic literature in schools has more to do with avoiding paying royalties to current authors than it does with truly trying to excite students about reading.
• “Parents who want their children to succeed must insist upon higher standards than those set by the school.”
• “Students should be given as much choice as we can cram into schools.”
• It would be more efficient and produce more memorable learning experiences if great lessons were prepared in one place with a big budget and distributed to teachers using various media, rather than asking individual teachers to make their own great lessons.
• “All meta-analyses agree that computers are more effective than traditional instruction.”
• “There is no more CAI [computer assisted instruction] in high schools today than there was forty year ago.”

The book is certainly an interesting and provocative read. But if you are a classroom teacher, you probably should read this during the summer, when you can develop plans to do things a bit differently. But if you are an administrator, you might want to get a copy immediately. Scheider doesn’t just suggest change; he is trying to instill an uprising.