Perhaps the first assay we learned in science class was the starch test, where we dropped iodine on a substance, and if it turned “blue-black”, it indicated the presence of starch.

Now, as modern-day science teachers, we carry on the wisdom of generations of science teachers, and continue to avoid calling the positive result “black and blue”, as no science teacher wants students to associate bruises with white bread or potatoes.

The starch test has become such a common test, that I believe the term “starch test” should replace “litmus test” as the analogy cliché for social or political tests. (For example, Wikipedia states, “A litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would choose to proceed with the appointment or nomination.”) How many non-science teachers even know what litmus is or what a litmus test is? Let’s start using analogies more people can relate to. [People would really start liken that (with an intended pun on the nature of litmus)!]

Today is the six-month anniversary of this blog. It seems such a short time ago, but alas, on June 20, 2008, my first blog was posted. This made me wonder, “How does one know if one is successful after just six short months?

To find the answer to this query, I did a search on blogs. I found no numerical metrics for success. Looking at the latest report from Google Analytics, I did see that more than 35 people per day have read this blog, and that this month alone, there were over 1,000 readers from 70 countries/territories.

The search for blogs about blogs (i.e. metablogs) yielded no numbers, which I viewed once again as evidence that collective wisdom can often be found in groups of people. The qualitative metric I did derive, however, from reading the advice of more experienced blog pundits was this: If a blogger enjoys writing about their interests, and some people are reading, then it should be considered successful. As far as this starch test is concerned, I judge this blog as a success, and I thank you for reading it.

But now on to science teaching and technology, which is the focus of this blog. In the living world, photosynthesis is one of the most important processes. Fortunately, Adaptive Curriculum has a free interactive activity that teachers and students (from all 70 countries/territories) can use to learn more about photosynthesis. In “Plants Needs for Photosynthesis” students conduct several investigations, where they can add or subtract water, light, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. The plant then does its thing (AKA: metabolism) for four hours.

After this, the starch test is performed to see if photosynthesis occurred. In the starch test, the leaves are boiled and then dipped into hot alcohol to remove the green chlorophyll. Next, the leaves are dipped into room temperature water. Finally, drops of iodine are placed upon the leaves. Through these discovery-based learning experiences, students are able to determine the conditions that are needed for photosynthesis to occur.  

Thank you to Adaptive Curriculum for giving us this free Flash-based activity, and for their support of this blog. And no matter what your starch test or litmus test for happiness may be, I wish you a happy holiday season.

Resources:

If you (or your students) don’t know what a litmus test is, here are some links:

Adaptive Curriculum’s “The Properties of Acids”

Adaptive Curriculum’s “The Properties of Bases”

Adler, Kris Lesson Plan: The pH scale. 

Whether at the high school or middle school level, students studying graphs of motion are often confused. One area of confusion occurs in the difference between distance-time graphs and displacement-time graphs. Virtual activities can cause more confusion, unless the right ones are chosen.

Distance-time graphs are a part of many middle school math and science curricula. A Google search for “distance-time graphs” reveals about 10,500 websites with many Java-based and Flash-based online activities. The problem for physics learners and teachers is that in many cases, the developers call their graph a distance-time graph but in reality they are displacement-time graphs.

Here are some examples of (otherwise) good websites making this error:

Moving Man 

Football (soccer) Distance Time Graph

GCSE Bitesize 

There are a few good sites that accurately portray distance-time graphs.

“Crocodile-clips” is a simple, free site where students move a helicopter and create a real-time distance-time graph. It doesn’t matter if the helicopter is moved away from or closer to the starting point. The true distance traveled is displayed on the graph. It is simple but effective.

Commonwealth Curriculum Pack (CCP) is a more involved site. I used this with my mixed age physics class last week and it made the point and kept their interest.

This site uses the context of the 100-meter race to show different arrival speeds. Quickly, my students learned that the steeper the slope (gradient), the greater the speed of the runner. Then we viewed several nice animated sequences of interpolation, which they then interpreted.

PBS Teacher Line http://www.pbs.org/teacherline/resources/activities/race/readings/race.htm.

Students observe stick figures run 400-meter races. They can see the runners move at actual speeds or average speeds, so this serves as a good way to help students understand instantaneous speed versus average speed.

Motion graphs will probably always be confusing for some students. We can reduce confusion with distance-time and displacement-time graphs by using internet resources that accurately portray the difference.

Additional Resources

Adaptive Curriculum’s Activity Object: “Truck On: Position and Velocity-Time Graphs” 

The Physics Classroom Tutorial: Distance and Displacement

This week, I had the good fortune to meet with Conrad Storad, who is well known in Arizona for his children’s book Don’t Call Me Pig! We didn’t talk about javelinas, but we did talk about science education. Conrad reminded me and my dean (Mari Koerner) about the widespread use of the ASU science magazine, Chain Reaction, by middle grade children in Arizona.

Conrad and his staff, who produce the ASU Research magazine, also produce Chain Reaction. At their website, teachers can request class sets of Chain Reaction magazine, and it is all free. The magazine issues are thematic, with the following topics developed: urban ecology, solar system, Sonoran Desert, Weather Station, and Biotechnology. For teachers outside of Arizona, there is the electronic option, downloading the stories from the website.

On the website are the science standards (see Teacher Tips) addressed and some complimentary activities. But the best part is the lively presentation of the science content in the articles. Conrad has data that suggests that language arts teachers commonly use the magazines as a way to bring nonfiction reading in the classroom. This seems like a great tool for teachers to compliment other forms of instruction.

For example, after students used Adaptive Curriculum’s Activity Object “Greenhouse Effect,” they could follow it up with reading of “carbon-dioxide-questions” from Chain Reaction’s issue on Urban Ecology and in the process learn about ASU plant biologist Tad Day.

Duke and Bennett-Armistead summarize six reasons for having students read nonfiction as a normal part of instruction.

1) Provides the key to success in later schooling 


2) Prepares students to handle real-life reading 


3) Appeals to readers’ preferences 


4) Addresses students’ questions and interests 


5) Builds knowledge of the natural and social world


6) Boosts vocabulary and other kinds of literacy knowledge

Whatever type of instruction is used in a classroom, Chain Reaction can be a useful resource for middle grade science learning and literacy. It brings science alive and helps students meet real scientists. 

About the Images

First image: The cover of Chain Reaction’s issue on Urban Ecology. 

Second Image: A scene from Adaptive Curriculum’s Activity Object called “Greenhouse Effect,” This scene is summarizing the results of an interactive experiment where students compare the warming of the air in a container with a lid to a container with no lid. 

 I was teaching a middle school lesson on static electricity on Halloween so I dressed up as “StaticElectricity.” We did the usual activities with balloons, such as picking up paper, rice crispies, and coffee grounds. I used water balloons, but of course, we filled them with air. I liked their shape better, but some students had difficulty blowing them up. One variation that one of my university students found was to draw two circles on opposite sides of a balloon. After that, one side was rubbed on hair, and the other was not. Students could accurately predict that the circle rubbed would pick up stuff, but most did not accurately predict about the other circle. It didn’t pick up anything, as the balloon was an insulator and the charges stayed where they were placed.

I found a good applet on static electricity. It is from PhET, the makers of The Circuit Construction Kit, which I positively reviewed in a previous blog. It is fine for a teacher to demonstrate that electrons move but positive charges do not, however, as a student activity it has limited potential. When you start, the balloon has no net charge. When you rub it on the wool sweater the balloon picks up electrons (shown in blue) and the sweater loses electrons. Now the balloon will stick to the sweater because positive and negative charges attract. if you move the balloon towards the wall it repels the electrons in the wall and it sticks to the wall. 

Other Resources for Static Electricity

Adaptive Curriculum’s Activity Object “Electric Force“ 

Kurtus, Ron. (2008). “Basics of Static Electricity.”

NASA, “Cling On“

To be sure the idea behind WolfQuest has merit, let children ages 10 to 15 become virtual wolves and learn about wolves and their habitat. But in production, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and privately supported free WolfQuest game is disappointing. I found it to be tedious and buggy (on my Macintosh). Just to be fair, I did induce my 11 year-old son to try out the game. By induce, I confess, that I paid him an hourly rate to try it out. He played for about three hours total. I will say that the game does have good 3-D graphics and when my 8 year-old son saw him playing the game, he was induced to be a wolf just for the fun of it–for about one hour. They seemed to spend most of their time hunting, which wasn’t all that much fun (lots of running, with some attacking). They never did get around to mating….

I do suppose that some children may become deeply immersed in this environment, creating their own online wolf packs and exploring aspects of wolf social behavior. And if a good percentage of tweenagers were motivated to do a couple of extra hours of science explorations, I suppose the NSF would be happy with the $508,253 grant they gave to the Minnesota Zoo for the project. (I don’t know the full budget but private organizations contributed quite a bit as well.)

But where is the science? You would think there would be a “for educators” or “for parents” description of the science that might be learned. I couldn’t find any descriptions like this on their web site or the downloadable manual. The developers apparently don’t think this is important, but yet the WolfQuest merchandise link was very prominent. So what did my sons learn? They saw some variation in wolf types as they created their avatar.  They also learned that wolves in Yellowstone National Park hunt elk and hares and perhaps that the life of a lone wolf is not that much fun.

It is not easy to criticize this project; it is much like in the movie Teachers (1984), where Alex says, “That’d be like $#*%ing on the Peace Corps!” It is far more PC to say, “Wow, this is nice, look at all the downloads they attracted!” or “Wouldn’t you rather have your kids play this?” I know I might come off as sounding “anti-wolf” or against conservation of natural habitats, but that is not at all my view. For instance, when I was co-author for the biology textbook, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Glencoe/McGraw Hill), I introduced for the first time a chapter on Conservation Biology that was eventually copied by other textbook companies. I have also taught a Conservation Biology course in the National University when I was living in Costa Rica.

Besides the lack of fun, my problem with this game is with the lack of science education. Perhaps the goal isn’t science education. Oddly enough, the web page does describe one of the goals: “Gameplay will create a strong emotional connection between players and wolves, changing player’s attitudes toward wolves and habitat conservation in the real world.” First, I think this is a ridiculous statement. My children have “become” so many characters in video games, and I have not observed strong emotional connections form. Indeed if this was the case, in any Nintendo game I would insist my sons never become Wario and always become Mario! Second, I think this is a misguided goal; the idea of a good education is to develop an understanding of a situation to make informed choices. Our goal should be to help children understand species, ecology, and conservation and not to have their emotions guide their behavior.

Resources

Chandria, Pultkit (December, 2007). Wear the skins of wolves in WolfQuest

Linde, Aaron, (January 2008). Be a wolf, learn about nature in WolfQuest

WolfQuest: Amethyst Mountain Deluxe Review

The Circuit Construction Kit (CCK) is a great electricity resource for middle grade and high school students to conduct science investigations and learn about electricity. This FREE resource allows students to produce simple circuits using cells, light bulbs, resistors, and switches. Students can complete series and parallel circuits and they can observe the varying brightness of the light bulbs. CCK also allows students to move into the quantitative realm. Clicking on some additional buttons enables voltmeters and ammeters, and thus measurements of voltage and current can enhance investigations.

Well equipped elementary and middle schools will have batteries, light bulbs, switches, and wires to give students real experiences in constructing circuits. CCK can compliment the physical activities with virtual activities to enhance understanding. Unfortunatley, many schools will not have these physical resources so CCK is a way to help students explore electricity. And, I have not yet come across elementary or middle schools that have class sets of ammeters or voltmeters, so this is a welcome component.

Putting CCK to use

With my middle grade students we are using CCK to discover how to make series and parallel circuits, how to use ammeters and voltmeters, how current and voltage vary in different types of circuits, what are short circuits, and to observe that the ratio voltage/current is equal to resistance (Ohm’s Law).

Of course, the possibilities of how to use CCK are vast. Teacher goals, creativity, and experience level will make this a great resource in some classrooms. Most high school physics teachers will be able to instantly employ this tool. I wish that there were more structured lesson plans for using this tool at the elementary and middle school level so that teachers who are not yet comfortable with electricity could help their students have meaningful experiences. Some lessons can be found at the teaching idea page but these are almost all high school and university lessons.

The diagram above is one of the circuits I asked my middle grade students to construct. Then using a non-contact ammeter, they measured the current through all the branches of the circuit. They later used the voltmeter to measure the voltage across each of the branches.

Reflections in teaching

Working with middle school students, I found that they had few problems in using CCK. We started off constructing real circuits and then reproducing them in CCK where they used the ammeter to measure current at different places in the circuit. Although I know the importance of “free exploration” and wrote about it before in this blog, my regret is that I didn’t allow for free exploration with this virtual tool. Students really wanted to explore lots of things on their own, without me specifying what circuits to create. So, I should have allowed time for this before directing their explorations.

The Circuit Construction Kit is a simple but powerful tool that has a lot of utility in the upper elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms. It is a rich environment for free exploration and it presents many possibilities for guided-inquiry investigations.

The reviews are coming in about the new game SPORE, and they are less than inspiring. Along with its restrictive DRM policy and the weak reviews, I am not going to purchase this software for me or my sons. While I did use and write about Creator Creator, my writing about SPORE is not based upon first-hand use.

The review are in….

Chad Sapieha of The Globe and Mail writes: “…dull and repetitive play makes evolving your own species more frustrating than fun.”

Lou Keston of the AP press writes: “No single element of ‘Spore’ is revolutionary in and of itself. Each of the levels feels like a simplified version of a game you’ve played before.”

Matt Peckham, in his blog for PC World, describes it this way: “…the game’s still a few chromosomes short of a genome.”

Seth Schiesel of the New York Times, writes, “Beneath all the eye candy, most of the basic core play dynamics in Spore are unfortunately rather thin.”

Chris Kohler of Wired wrote about the top ten things he learned from playing SPORE. Number one on his list, “Spore is kind of boring.”

And speaking of learning, is this a tool for science education?

While science was theoretically the driving force for SPORE creator Will Wright, the descriptions of SPORE do not indicate this will help people learn science. When the science is discussed it sounds more like misconceptions, rather than accurate understandings, are being fostered.

For example, notice how the science is described in these two reviews:

Thierry Nguyen of 1up.com states, “If you really need a quick one-line summary of what Spore is, I guess I’d describe it as ‘intelligent design via minigames.’”

Matt Peckham describes early parts of SPORE this way: “Consuming bits of matter builds up your DNA, which you can then spend on new parts available inside a simple design tool that pops up whenever you choose to mate.”

The notion of evolution as making choices, as deciding to come out of the water to be a land creature and therefore deciding what appendages to gain, and the thought that the more DNA you eat the more evolved are so wrong that I wonder why Will Wright considers this to be science inspired? Hopefully, the travel in outer space and the ecosystem building are more accurate. But for me, I am in no hurry to find out. 

Image Notes

1. I was in New York City last week, and decided to visit the neighborhood where I was born (lower East Side). I took this picture of the giant SPORE ad then. The text reads “Mitosis Happens.”

2. The image below is from the Activity Object “Natural Selection” from Adaptive Curriculum. 

Resources

Evolution Facts and Misconceptions, Adaptive Curriculum.

Evolution Resources, Kevin Miller

Most Americans know the story of the powerful John Henry, the man who drove steel into rock. There are many versions of the story and songs that have been passed from generation to generation. For example, listen to a version sung by Van Morrison. With a huge sledgehammer, John Henry drove steel spikes into rocks, as his partner turned them in ¼ rotations with each strike, to help make way for the westward moving railway lines. A salesman had a steam-powered drill that he said could do it faster than a human. John Henry challenged the machine, and with a fantastic display of energy, John Henry beat that machine. We could probably find scores of John Henry teachers in schools, those who, if pitted against a computer for helping students to learn, would handily win. John Henry won the competition but sadly died of exhaustion in the process. I don’t think the experienced teacher would suffer from exhaustion, but I do know many new teachers who are exhausted and overwhelmed by the demands of teaching. 

Today, railway workers use powerful drills to make holes in rocks; someday, teachers will make computers a powerful core tool in student-centered learning.  But it hasn’t happened yet.

While most of us can adduce examples of great things happening in schools with technology, and while students certainly do use computers as tools, such as in writing, presenting, and researching, there is a sense that we haven’t pushed the envelope.

The fault doesn’t lie with the teachers. A recent National Education Association (2008)/American Federation of Teachers survey indicated that (a) there were not enough computes in classrooms “to use computers effectively for classroom instruction;” and (b) training in technology focused more on non-instructional uses of computers. Teachers in the survey were not technophobes, they almost all had internet access at home and 95% answered that technology improved student learning, 89.1% indicated it made student learning more enjoyable, 86.4% said it saves time on the job, and 87.5% said it improves job effectiveness. These results suggest that if computers for student use were provided and better training in using computers for instruction was presented, teachers would make greater use of computers to support student learning.

As schools try to do so many things for so many different children, effectiveness and efficiency are not as easily discerned as they are for drilling a hole in rock. Even as the effectiveness and efficiencies are developed and revealed, the traditions and culture of “the school,” will not change easily. I predict that virtual schools will be the catalyst to transform schools and let teachers drop their “sledgehammers.”

Virtual schools will demonstrate the efficiencies of the extensive use of computers to support student learning. When today’s students show a great proclivity for learning with computers, when parents and students want more and more online classes, when more and more students start attending virtual schools, and when student learning is discovered and efficiencies are dramatically demonstrated, then finally physical schools will have to start rethinking the role of computers in student learning.

Of course, traditional public schools may be the last to change their ways. Charter schools and private schools will be in the vanguard, because if they don’t, many will fail and close their doors. In Arizona, a state that is second to California in the number of publicly supported charter schools (Center for Educational Reform, 2008), charter schools are struggling to compete primarily because they are trying to do the same things with less money. When I see charter schools with untrained teachers and inexperienced teachers, and large class sizes that resemble traditional classrooms, I wonder why anyone would send their children to these schools. I also read about closures of private schools (i.e. Goodman, 2008), most particularly Roman Catholic schools, because the expenses are growing faster than the tuition.

Look to see the charter and private schools emulating the successes of the virtual schools. We will see some charter schools go completely virtual and we will see many more online classes, especially in areas where it is difficult to get qualified teachers (such as Advanced Placement Chemistry, Physics, or Calculus).

The revolution I am most interested in will eventually happen in the “bricks and mortar” classrooms. Parents, teachers, students, and administrators will continue to value the physical presence and great influence of a teacher, but at the same time will also seek the learning gains and efficiencies of computer-based learning. As virtual experiences become a significant part of the classroom enterprise, teachers will increasingly assume the role of the “guide on the side” (rather than the “sage on the stage”), students will have enhanced motivation, and the work of the teacher will be easier. All this will encourage many more teachers to remain engaged in the profession.  In a similar way to railway workers using mechanical drills to make their work easier, computers will be core tools in student learning, and virtual schools will start the revolution.

About these images:

The first image is from the Library of Congress. it shows Fred Dapp in a rock-drilling competition between 1880 and 1900 probably in Colorado.

The second image is from Adaptive Curriculum‘s Activity Object “Nuclear Energy: Fission” showing a scene from an activity with a nuclear submarine.

Adaptive Curriculum, describes its core learning segments as “Activity Objects.” This is, as far as I know, a new term that has evolved from other terms including “Learning Objects.” In case you are not familiar with the term Learning Object, I will describe this, touching briefly on its origins, and then explain why I think Activity Objects is a well-chosen term.

What is a Learning Object?

The term Learning Object grew from computer object-oriented programming, a paradigm of creating reusable and cooperating “objects.” As with programming objects, the generally accepted criteria for Learning Objects are that they are digital, cooperating, and reusable. Unfortunately, as so often happens in education, terms are used in so many different ways, they start being less useful.

From a broad perspective, a Learning Object is any instructional resource that can be combined with other resources. This is formally presented as “independent pieces of instruction that may be reused in multiple learning contexts” (Fernandez-Manjon & Sancho, 2002). To many of us, that is too wide a definition as almost anything can be considered a learning object.

Wiley’s (2000) definition—more useful because it is narrower—is as follows: “Any digital resource that can be reused to facilitate learning.” According to Wiley, “Learning objects are generally understood to be digital entities deliverable over the Internet, meaning that any number of people can access and use them simultaneously (as opposed to traditional instructional media, such as an overhead or video tape, which can only exist in one place at a time). Moreover, those who incorporate learning objects can collaborate on and benefit immediately from new versions.”

Friesen (2003) describes problems with terminology involving Learning Objects and makes a call for clarity: “Using a term that make sense only in abstruse technical discussions, and that is opaque and confusing to practitioners does not make its potential benefits clear to teachers…. It is simply that innovations must be presented in terms that are meaningful for teaching practice.”

I think teachers need to be able to easily differentiate between online resources that are relatively passive (such as text based web pages) and those that have strong elements of student interactions. I believe that the term Activity Object is a term that will make sense to practitioners and will help differentiate online resources with strong elements of interactivity. There is a big difference between some current science articles versus cool science experiments online.

What is an Activity Object?

An Activity Object, as the name describes, is a learning module that puts the emphasis on active learning rather than just passively reading text or viewing images or movies. It is designed to compliment other instructional approaches.

I propose the following definition of an Activity Object: An Activity Object is an online digital learning module featuring high-quality student interactions that help to achieve narrow learner outcomes.

To be sure, the Activity Objects of Adaptive Curriculum feature engagements, animations, closures, activity sheets, and assessments, but these are supportive of the high-quality interactions. Of course, some may take the definition I propose and say that many online materials are Activity Objects. To me the question resides in whether or not it is a high-quality interaction. If students mainly read text or watch movies, even if they are answering some questions as they go, this just doesn’t rise to the level of being a high-quality interaction and should not be considered an Activity Object. I propose that we use the term Learning Object for those online materials that support learning but that don’t have high-quality interactions, and that the term Activity Object be judiciously used for learning experiences with high-quality interactions. Therefore, the resource with current events in Earth science can be considered to be a Learning Object but the science project, science activity, and interactions would be considered Activity Objects.

References

Fernandez-Manjon, B. and Sancho, P. (2002) Creating Cost-effective Adaptative Educational Hypermedia Based on Markup Technologies and E-Learning Standards. Interactive Educational Multimedia, No. 4, April, 1-11 

Friesen, N. (2003). Three objections to Learning Objects and E-learning Standards

Wiley, D.(2000). The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Agency for Instructional Technology and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Available at Reusability. 

I recently played An Army of Two (Playstation 3) with my son. This game is in the war genre with other games such as Call of Duty. One big difference is that it is best played by two players who cooperate with each other; without another real-life person as your partner, it simply isn’t that fun. Each player views one-half of the split screen.

Similar to the movie cliché, “cover me, I’m going in,” the partners work together by one drawing all the enemy fire and attention, leaving the other player able to approach the enemy from the side or rear to get the “bad guy.” The “attention” (called aggro because of enhanced firepower) alternates from player to player (you are outlined in red when you are aggro), so both players get to experience both roles. You can even give kudos to your partner, letting him or her know, they did good work. The game has great graphics but unfortunately it is rated Mature.

The cooperation is what interests me. There are sports games where players can be on the same team but usually you can play as well or better by yourself. Online multiplayer games offer the ability to compete or to form teams and cooperate. Tom Snyder did a few science education, cooperative learning, software and booklet activities about a decade ago (including Rainforest Researcher and The Great Solar System Rescue).  But the educational emphasis today seems to be on one young person interacting with the computer. In programs where there is more than one player, it is usually a competitive situation.

So as the gaming world ventures forth into more cooperation, it is interesting to ponder how this will play out in the world of science education. Perhaps we can advance past the primitive world of two students at a keyboard, where one does the manipulating and the other does the watching, with very little conversation. Imagine students truly cooperating to build a Rube Goldberg device, such as in Adaptive Curriculum’s activity object The Transformation of Energy. Co-op play will certainly make the gaming experience better, and I look forward to seeing titles that young children can play. Let’s hope it goes aggro for the educational developers as well.