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#

“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

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

 

The key ingredient of a successful hands-on science lesson is to start with a great science activity. I think as teacher educators, it is easy to underestimate how difficult it is for preservice students to find and evaluate science activities. In my “Physics for Teachers” class, students teach a hands-on science physics lesson. But before they turn in a lesson plan and teach a lesson, they are required to submit the activities they strongly considered and two activities they tested out and that they determined to be excellent. I then make the selection of which activity they will teach, helping to ensure that they are successful and that our class enjoys vibrant, relevant hands-on experiences. I am attaching the template my students use for this assignment.
Click Here for Physics Activity Template

References:
Ewbank, A. (2008).  Physics for Teachers Library Page. http://libguides.asu.edu/content.php?pid=3104&sid=235078

Rillero, P., & Gallegos, B. (1998). Databases: A Gateway to Literature in Science and Mathematics Education. In J. E. Malone, W. Atweh, & J. Northfield (Eds.), Research and Supervision in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 323-349). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates (Hardcover edition: ISBN# 0-8058-2968-7, paperback edition ISBN# 0-8058-2969-5)

About the Image

The picture shows two toy cars and is from Adaptive Curriculum’s Activity Object entitled “Newton’s Third Law of Motion.”

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. 

Ever since, and probably before, Robert Yager’s (1983) study that suggested the amount of new vocabulary in science textbooks exceeded the number of vocabulary words for learning a foreign language, many educators have been concerned with the number of terms introduced in science classes and methods to help students learn vocabulary.

Recent reforms of state standards, starting with Project 2061, have hopefully reduced the amount of superficial knowledge we ask students to learn. Nevertheless, the new vocabulary can be daunting. The NCLB focus on math and English, with the consequential neglect of science in the elementary grades has resulted in many students entering the middle grades with deficits in their science vocabulary (Cunningham & Allington, 2007).

The teaching of vocabulary is the job of all teachers (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2002). The understanding of content vocabulary is, after all, an excellent predictor of success in the subject area (Wilcox 2006). While inquiry skills, concept development, and understanding are more important goals, students knowing and using key vocabulary are important outcomes of science education.

I recently discovered a tool to assist in vocabulary acquisition. Andrew Sutherland created Quizlet in 2005 when he was a 15 year-old student studying French vocabulary. From what I can tell, it has become a phenomenal success, with over 200,000 registered users. More than flashcards, Quizlet has activities in the following sections: (a) Familiarize, (b) Learn, (c) Test, (d) Play Scatter, and (e) Play Space Race. The great thing about Quizlet is it is all internet based, so there is no need to download and install software, which can be annoying in some situations and impossible in many schools.

Students can type in their own words and definitions and then learn them through a variety of activities. I also like, however, having access to the great repository of already prepared quizlets. For instance, I just taught a unit on magnetism in my son’s middle school classroom. If I would have discovered Quizlet sooner I might have assigned the quizlet on magnets to review for the test. As a parent, my other son (in third grade) had some vocabulary words to learn from his language arts book in the section “Pepita Talks Twice.” A few different quizlets for these words were already established. My son and I reviewed a few words on my iPhone on the way back from soccer practice.  

While we need to be mindful of reducing the “tyranny of terminology” that sometimes describes science courses, we must also help our students learn the key words. Quizlet is a free tool that can help students learn and use scientific vocabulary.

Resources

Adaptive Curriculum, Magnetic Field of  Magnet.  http://www.adaptivecurriculum.com/us/details/USSXP080401

Cunningham, P. M. & Allington, R. L.  (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wilcox, J. (2006). Chicago teachers learn to build academic vocabulary. ASCD Education Update 48 (6): 1–2.

Blachowicz, C., and P. Fisher. 2002. Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice- Hall.

Quizlet. http://quizlet.com/

Thelen, J. N. (1984). Improving reading in science.2nd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Yager, R. E. (1983). The Importance of Terminology in Teaching K-12 Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(6), 577-88. 

Paul Marshall shared an early version of his doctoral thesis with me that is important for science teachers teaching about moments, torque, and levers. His thesis compared physical and virtual environments for balance beam learning. The balances used are made from strips of wood with a fulcrum in the middle and weights that are hung from nails at fixed distances on either side of the fulcrum.

Marshall’s work is impressive and his writing style is refreshingly communicative without the vague obscurity of many contemporary researchers attempting to sound intellectual. Marshall presents key aspects of the long history, starting with Piaget, of balance beam studies. This is important for his coding scheme of the results. In this way, he goes beyond whether there was a difference in physical versus virtual representations of the balance beam on pretest-posttest content gains. I won’t attempt to describe an entire doctoral dissertation in a blog—but I will point out some salient findings.

In Marshall’s own words, “The main question to be addressed by this study was again whether using physical rather than virtual materials while completing the learning task would produce measurable differences in learning outcomes between the groups.” The subjects were 32 college students who worked in pairs on the physical or virtual tasks. They were given the pretest and then asked to explore the balance beam so they could perform better on the posttest. Students were limited to a maximum time of 30 minutes for the explorations. I consider this a “free exploration” situation rather than the typical “guided-inquiry” approach.

The results are similar to a study I described by Klahr, Triona, and Williams (2007). In both studies, all of the students had higher posttest scores, but there were no differences between the physical and virtual groups. Because all the interactions on the task were videotaped, Marshall was able to look at the type and duration of experiments. The physical group did an average of 28.8 experiments versus 37.2 for the control group, but these differences were not statistically significant. The mean time for physical experiments was 24 seconds versus 28 seconds for the virtual group, again not statistically significant.

Marshall classified the student experiments by how rich they were for providing useful data. There were no differences between the physical and virtual groups on this measure. Marshall also classified the experiments based on the Vary One Thing at A Time (VOTAT) protocol (Tschirgi, 1980). Again, there was no significant differences here either.

“In summary, there is little evidence that using physical materials in the balance beam task has a significant effect on participants’ choice of experiment search strategies. This contradicts predictions that subjects using the physical materials might engage in greater and more fluid collaboration with physical materials.” Once again, although for most teachers the virtual environment would be easier to implement in a classroom, the data suggests no significant differences between physical and virtual groups.

Marshall’s study went on to analyze the conversations between the pairs working on the physical and virtual tasks. There were no statistically significant differences in the amount of dialog that was coded as hypothesis, summary of data, prediction, alternate hypothesis, critique of a hypothesis, agreement with a hypothesis, extension of a hypothesis, justification by several experimental results, plan to test hypothesis, discussions about testability, arguments against a justification, or requests for explanation.

The virtual group, however, did have statistically significant more talk about suggestions of new experiments. This result was expected because when one student controls the mouse, there is more need for conversation about what they should do next.

The physical group had statistically significant more talk about description of results. Marshall suggests that this may have been because in the virtual situation both students could easily see what was happening, but in the physical situation, when both were sitting next to each other, each had slightly different perspectives.

“It must be concluded that using physical materials has little effect on learning about the concept of balance as presented in this study.” Marshall’s study adds to the nascent number of studies suggesting that virtual tasks make equivalent gains to physical tasks. Interesting wrinkles are the increased talk for planning experiments in the virtual environment and increased discussion of results in physical situations. Opportunities to extend all elements of discussions in all situations need to be explored.

References:

Klahr, D., Triona, L.M., & Williams, C. (2007) “Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical Versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), pp 183-203.

As a long-time advocate of hands-on science (Perspectives of Hands-On Science Teaching  Haury & Rillero, 1994), I believe that hands-on science with physical entities is an important part of science classrooms. As examples consider science experiments where students hold and manipulate physical things, such as spring balances, magnets, and earthworms. I believe virtual experiences are a compliment – not a replacement for— physical experiences and other forms of instruction.

There are of course situations where physical hands-on science experiences are not possible. Some science experiences may be too dangerous, too long, or too expensive and therefore virtual experiences can be a great way to provide the experience without the “too” problem. There are also some educational contexts where physical hands-on science can be problematic. For example, at an NSTA conference one of the teachers who was very excited about how Adaptive Curriculum worked in a prison for adolescents. She told me that it was against prison rules to allow any physical hands-on materials into the classroom. Thus she was very interested in virtual experiences. While most science teaching situations are not this extreme, it is, however, the norm, rather than the exception that a lack of funds, material, equipment, or preparation time limits the quality or the amount of hands-on experiences we provide.

Perhaps I had a misconception about virtual experiences. I just assumed the physical experiences would be better than the virtual experiences. But then I came across a research study published in a top science education journal entitled: “Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical Versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children” (Klahr, Triona, & Williams, 2007). According to the authors, “The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of putting learners’ hands on virtual rather than physical materials in a scientific discovery context.”

The study compared constructing physical and virtual mousetrap cars and the learning outcomes. Pretests were conducted on student knowledge and constructing an optimal distance car. Based upon pretest-posttest gains on the content exam students were either classified as “learners” or “non-learners.” In the physical group there were 14 learners and 14 non-learners. In the virtual group there were 16 learners and 12 non-learners. Although the physical group outperformed the virtual, this was not a statistically significant difference.

When it comes to the designing the Optimal Distance Car test, all groups designed cars that went farther from pre to post test. There were no significant differences between the groups. Of course, educational researchers don’t usually get too excited about finding “no statistically significant difference.” In this study, it is interesting, however, because it suggests that the learning may have been equivalent.

The authors of the study point out that the virtual experiences were far easier for the teachers because they didn’t have to gather and distribute materials and find special hall locations for the students to conduct their tests. The study also suggested efficiencies for the students. Half the students in each group had limited time to build their cars; half had a limit on the number of cars they could construct. When time was limited, virtual group tested more cars (average =20.1) than physical group (6.1), which was a statistically significant difference. When number of cars was restricted to six, virtual students did it in less time (6 minutes versus 20 minutes). Being able to do more in the same time or the same in less time, both with the same learning outcomes, does indeed help show the value of virtual experiences.

But in my opinion the value of virtual science experiences, is still as a complement to the physical experiences rather than as a replacement. I don’t know of studies that support this opinion but I suspect that most science educators would agree with this position. So for me, we should focus less on “Physical Versus Virtual Hands-On Science Experiments” but more on how virtual experiences can enhance overall science teaching and learning.

References:

Klahr, D., Triona, L.M., & Williams, C. (2007) “Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical Versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), pp 183-203.

Haury, D.L., & Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives of Hands-On Science Teaching. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.