The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology prepared a report (September, 2010) with the following recommendations:

(1) STANDARDS: SUPPORT THE CURRENT STATE-LED MOVEMENT FOR SHARED STANDARDS IN MATH AND SCIENCE

(2) TEACHERS: RECRUIT AND TRAIN 100,000 GREAT STEM TEACHERS OVER THE NEXT DECADE WHO ARE ABLE TO PREPARE AND INSPIRE STUDENTS

(3) TEACHERS: RECOGNIZE AND REWARD THE TOP 5 PERCENT OF THE NATION’S STEM TEACHERS, BY CREATING A STEM MASTER TEACHERS CORPS

(4) EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY: USE TECHNOLOGY TO DRIVE INNOVATION, BY CREATING AN ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

(5) STUDENTS: CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INSPIRATION THROUGH INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP EXPERIENCES OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM

(6) SCHOOLS: CREATE 1,000 NEW STEM-FOCUSED SCHOOLS OVER THE NEXT DECADE

(7) ENSURE STRONG AND STRATEGIC NATIONAL LEADERSHIP

The report begins with this summary of the importance of STEM:

The success of the United States in the 21 century – its wealth and welfare – will depend on the ideas and skills of its population. These have always been the Nation’s most important assets. As the world small measure by the effectiveness of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the United States. STEM education will determine whether the United States will remain a leader among nations and whether we will be able to solve immense challenges in such areas as energy, health, environmental protection, and national security. It will help produce the capable and flexible workforce needed to compete in a global marketplace. It will ensure our society continues to make fundamental discoveries and to advance our understanding of ourselves, our planet, and the universe. It will generate the scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians who will create the new ideas, new products, and entirely new industries of the 21st century. It will provide the technical skills and quantitative literacy needed for individuals to earn livable wages and make better decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities. And it will strengthen our democracy by preparing all citizens to make informed choices in an increasingly technological world.

Chapter 5 focuses on teachers and begins with this statement:

Anyone who has set foot in a classroom knows that teachers make a huge difference in the lives of their students. While not everyone can recall the influence of a legendary teacher like Jaime Escalante, many people have stories about the crucial role that a teacher played in sparking their passion for a subject, teaching them a lifelong skill, or helping them surmount an obstacle. Indeed, most people who work in STEM fields or who simply have an interest in STEM can point to teachers who excited about them about the beauty and power of mathematics, the wonders of science, or the power of technology – and who helped them learn that they could gain mastery of these subjects. Sadly, though, many adults also point to experiences in school that convinced them that STEM subjects were inherently boring, cryptic, or beyond their grasp.

The report correctly points to the importance of STEM for our nation, and suggests compelling steps to improve what we do.

I received the following email from a reader of this blog:

Hi Peter – I have a professional question for you as a teacher, a parent, and a science guru…

Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate for a 5th grade (kids age 10) teacher to show her class a series of YouTube movies about the theory that the US astronauts did NOT land on the moon back in the 1960′s?  This is during a unit on Astronomy.

I know my own take on it – I just wanted to see what you thought/think?

-Amy

Thank you for the question Amy. Here is my answer….

First, it is difficult to know the motivation of the teacher for showing this. If she had expertise in the space program and she was presenting these non-scientific ideas to show how science and logic can refute them, I would say excellent.

But alas, I suspect this was not the case. More likely the teacher heard of the allegations that the landing on the Moon was a fraud, and was interested enough to read the allegations, without spending the time to look deeper. Sharing just the allegations with students through YouTube videos is not, in my opinion, what a teacher of science should do.

I still remember my parents waking me up from bed and leading me downstairs to the playroom to watch the astronauts landing on the Moon. The NASA accomplishment helped Americans realize the importance of science and technology, and for many children, it ignited more interest in science.

Of course there are so many lunar landing conspiracy theories throwing up so many trial balloons, that it would take a team of scientists a lifetime to keep shooting them all down. Some are easy to dismiss. “Hey, the US flag is blowing in the wind and there is no air on the moon. It’s a fake!” Although I don’t remember much as a 9 year old, I remember the announcers making the point that since there was no air or wind, NASA put wires into the flag to hold it up.

Then there is the logical question, why can’t we just point a telescope at the places where they landed so we can see if their stuff is there?

But according to NASA, “The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide.” We will someday have probes and people return to the moon that will confirm the existence of these leftover materials. You might think that would put it all to rest but guess what? This is already anticipated by the conspiracy theorists, who say, well un-manned vessels could have put the materials there.

If it was a hoax, you would think the fewer people involved the better. Why not pretend to go just once, instead of nine times so less people are involved? There are 12 astronauts that walked on the moon, who indicated it really happened. There are hundreds of other NASA personnel who also say the same thing. From personal accounts to moon rocks, the evidence suggests this did happen.

I can’t take the time to research all the theories and all the counter-arguments. But in my mind, science is so rarely taught in elementary classrooms, that it is a sin to spend science instructional time on pseudo-science via YouTube videos. Let’s spend time helping students learn about science and the contributions it has made.

Resources

Adaptive Curriculum’s Activity Object, “Make a Telescope: See the Moon.”

BadAstronomy.com. “Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax“ (Air Date: February 13, 2001)

Mythbusters Episode 104: “NASA Moon Landing” (Air Date: August 27, 2008)

Redzero. “MoonHoax”

I had the good fortune to spend a few days in the City of Brotherly Love. Of course, having a friend with local insights and views into the culture made  the travel experience  more intriguing. The city of Philadelphia, which I suspect is a friendly place under normal circumstances, was exuding globs of amiability the morning after their beloved Phillies clinched their first National League title in a very long time.

My friend, John Larkin, took me to an Italian restaurant for lunch where I had my first real Philly cheesesteak sandwich. I asked John how to have it, and he said, “With Whiz.” So I had it with Cheese Whiz, with onions, and with mushrooms, all on an Amoroso roll. I took a picture (to the right) and enjoyed my lunch.

John went on to tell me about Geno’s and Pat’s, two local establishments that are famous for their cheesesteaks. Intriguingly, he told  that Geno’s would kick you out of line if you didn’t know what you were doing when you ordered. This even applied to foreign tourists. Pat’s was more welcoming.

There was something about the arrogance of Geno’s that attracted me. It must be a great cheesesteak for them to be able to kick people out of line who were hesitant in their ordering. So I walked from the East Market train station to South Philly to Geno’s. I went up to the window where the workers/owners were raised on a floor a few feet higher than the sidewalk. I noticed the menu painted on the wall had one thing: cheesesteak sandwiches, and the only option was, “Whiz, American, or provolone cheese.” With a little trepidation, I ordered the Philly steak with provolone and onions. The man up high turned to the cook and said, “Provolone wit.”  The “wit” meant “with onions”. I must have gotten it right because I wasn’t kicked out of line. When I asked about a drink, I was told that that was at a different window, so I paid for, and received my sandwich, and proceeded to the next window to pay for, and receive my drink.

It was a delightful cheesesteak; the quality of the beef was better than any other I have had on a sandwich. Although I enjoyed the cheesesteak at the Italian restaurant, this one was much better. I, of course, had to  check out Pat’s across the street, and I noticed that they had a lot more options on their menu. The options did look interesting, but I was full.

What does this have to do with technology in science education? There are a few analogies that are detailed below. These analogies lead to questions that we need to think about and ultimately answer.

Arrogance of Computer Makers.  After the Apple computer faded away, and up to the last couple of years, there seemed to be an arrogant disdain by computer makers for the educational market place. Sure, they were willing to sell computers to schools, but how much effort did they really  put into producing computers that were fully adapted for classroom use?  And today, is the arrogance gone? To be sure, as we are seeing mini-notebooks evolve, with names such as “Classmates” (by Intel), the educational marketplace is garnering attention. But beyond being smaller and less expensive, are these really fully adapted for the classroom? And what about desktops? Even though we heard talk of one hard drive running several keyboards and monitors, thus reducing costs dramatically, I haven’t seen these in schools. I see one CPU, one monitor, one keyboard, and one mouse. Even the idea of multiple mice (which I wrote about in a previous blog) has not happened. When will the commercial producers of computers focus their machines on being great tools for the classrooms? Perhaps it is time to wander across the street to find Pat’s….

Focus versus Wide Applications. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were rich varieties of science software titles in many schools. Then consolidations in the education software industry and budget cut backs left many schools with just the suite of Microsoft Products. Students could use Excel, PowerPoint, and Word in many different contexts. In a sense, we went from Pat’s to Geno’s. Perhaps simplicity was good. Indeed, in some of the more successful software applications, such as Inspiration, the simplicity of purpose (concept mapping) make it a strong tool. New products are coming out, such as Pasco’s SPARK, but they purposefully don’t promise to do everything. The SPARK has focus, yet the educational world has matured enough so that we can and should have a rich variety of science educational tools. It is time to move beyond Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Within the variety, good, simple tools are valued; tools that, like the iPod, do only a few things, but they do them well.

Reluctant to ask for Help. During the teaching part of the year, teachers are as busy as any professionals I know. Teachers know how busy they are and thus how busy their colleagues are. It is no wonder that teachers may be reluctant to ask colleagues for technology help that would involve more than a few minutes. So, many teachers stay in their comfort zone, not pushing the edge because they are not asking for help.  This is probably not because the teacher is “afraid of being kicked out of the line,” but because they know how busy their colleagues are. Where are teachers supposed to go for help when everybody seems so busy? From the fellow science teacher to the teacher who gets a prep period to run the computer lab, there seems to be no great solution for support. Perhaps online support and training, such as Adaptive Curriculum’s use of Webex presentations can help solve the problem.

When I visited Philadelphia, I started at Geno’s. Next time I will  go to Pat’s. I think I will enjoy the variety, and I think I will be calmer as I ask for a cheesesteak with provolone, onions, AND mushrooms. And I just might ask them, is it possible to get raw onions instead of grilled?

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.