Thought I would try a new font today.
A couple of quick little things, I spent some time today trying to modify the feeds to my RSS. I am thinking I need to add a few and get rid of a couple. Trouble is, much of what I subscribe to is interesting, I just need to narrow the focus for time management reasons. I thought I would try to keep a few feeds of personal interest, as well some of those related to my attempts to get current with the world of edtech (big dreams I know), and also try to find some feeds related to the previous + teaching high school science.
My blogging hopefully will not slow down now that I have completed the first module of my ongoing grad studies, and I do hope I can a) find a few science teachers out there and b) help them and c) get their help.
So, a couple of things to throw out there as of today:
Spent some time on the weekend playing with the 2D physics sandbox PHUN. Have not got it installed at school yet to try with Smartboard but found it to a pretty neat application although I am not sure how to apply it yet. I am looking for your ideas and/or comments.
Spent a few minutes searching for fix for a broken link on a nice bit of video analysis lab work from UT Knoxville. They have put a number of videos (kinematics) online along with an interactive analysis feature as a way to do lab work virtually. We used it for conservation of momentum but there are many other options on offer including an index of demonstrations (useful ideas).
Finally, if you haven't already, check out the astronomy program Stellarium. It is AWESOME and FREE.
OK, I have midterm reports due this week and a huge stack of marking. Half my day today was spent doing review with IB Physics kids (they write their mock exam on Tuesday) and the rest running around like an idiot trying to throw and catch a frisbee. I know I have to get this done.
In general I feel overwhelmed. I also feel somewhat ignorant (perhaps overwhelmingly ignorant!?!). I was checking out Kim's blog and was reading her comments and reflections about teaching this course and the sizable network that has formed. Clicking around I found the SUNY participants link containing literally all of the blogged comments of 50 participants in one place. Did I miss this link earlier? WOW!
So I read around and a couple of things caught my eye. It is interesting to see such a diverse group of people and so much good stuff to read - but not enought time right now. I certainly think I have made a great decision to work in Bangkok next year and look forward to meeting you all.
In other notes from my RSS, this made me laugh when I read it and then visualized how it would play out in my classroom (or at our next staff meeting), are you laughing too?
But I digress . . MY REFLECTIONS by david young
Here is the list of what I have learned recently (with a small disclaimer that I probably learned tons more, and am still enthusiastic to continue learning so if I missed anything major, I apologize and please comment).
- I have so much more to learn
- Speed reading is a 21st century skill
- My Chinese ISP makes my life difficult: Part 1: no wet paint but thanks to Jeff and Hotspot shield I have managed to complete this course in between closing popup windows advertising screensavers, blackberries and "sex in your area" dating sites.
- My Chinese ISP makes my life difficult: Part 2: streaming of webcasts of ftf sessions painfully bouncy with disjointed audio as well. I think that not being in Bangkok did affect how much I got from this course AND, I also found that I only really met and collaborated with one person (out of 50+). I felt a bit disconnected and I am sure part of that is my own fault.
- Speaking of that one person, a shout goes out to Carole Henriot, a nice contact made, hope the francais exchange works out with Sylvain here in Beijing, and thanks for the blog support.
- UBD is everywhere - you cannot escape putting text into boxes no matter where you go.
- Hi to Mary Bellone whose thoughts on the new peer pressure post I found today when I followed the link from Kim's blog (see comment above). And I thought I was the only one.
- I know I need to get away from Google Blogger - my post is like 2" wide on a 21" monitor and I can't find an easy fix, damn you html. I also hate these crappy font choices
- The world needs a "look here blog" for some neat ideas about adopting 21st century skills in senior high school physics and chemistry curricula. Maybe I am the guy.
- I am doing OK in the world of integrating tech into my science classes. I know my focus is much different than alot of what I am seeing, hearing, reading about in terms of what we can do but I do thing the class WIKI is working and strangely growing (just add a litte water). I present as evidence an email I got today:
I am slowly learning to navigate more efficiently as well as speak the appropriate language. I have enjoyed reflecting in these blog posts although sometimes it bothers me that my ignorance is posted publicly for all to see. I have tried to not let that affect writing how I really feel (which is often uninformed but moving towards being more informed).
A big thanks to Jeff and Kim.
Putting the physics/chemistry teacher hat on again. Today, my SL chemistry class tried to determine a value for the specific heat capacity of water using Vernier probes, graphing software and (hopefully) their brains. It was the first time I got the new GO sensors out of the box so in doing my prep, I happened to have two sensors connected at the same time. I took a picture of what the software told me.
So what we have are two probes, in the same room telling two temperatures that are (by my standards) not even close to one another. I showed this to the students whose dumbfounded reaction implied I was performing some kind of science voodoo magic.
Quite often, when the 19th century skill of thermometer reading is required in a lab procedure, students will identify the thermometer as a weakness and suggest using a digital thermometer is more accurate. They are wrong on two accounts as I tried to explain today.
First, the students are confusing the meaning of accuracy and precision. I will concede that these digital probes may in fact be more precise (one needs to be careful here). Secondly, as the above result indicates, these probes are hardly accurate (or at least they can't both be). My question was "which reading is more accurate?". Of course, you can't tell (and in fact, a conventional alcohol thermometer read about 22 degrees - adding more fuel to the fire).
The point here is, students trust technology more than they should. They believe a digital probe is more accurate than a conventional instrument in most cases - this dogma evidenced by the massive confusion over why two digital instruments might disagree (one must be broken said one student).
We need to be careful about what we are really teaching them?
Wikipedia has an entry for digital footprint (and even subcategorizes to "active" and "passive") explaining basically the idea is that you have an online presence if you are an internet user. In fact, a 2007 report states that 47% of users have searched for themselves online and you can even download digital footprint calculator software.
I was wondering if there is any thought out there regarding digital footprints in the environmental carbon footprint context. I have noted (through following a number of edubloggers on my RSS) that like minded people tend to follow each other and as a result tend to do a lot of cutting and pasting of one blog posting into another. This is my first example of what I am calling "blogarithmic" expansion. A theory I am putting forward that eventually megawatts of electricity will be required world wide to run servers (well mostly fans cooling servers) to store yottabytes of repetitious information. That will add up in terms of energy costs.
In a related matter, to those of us asking our students to contribute and collaborate in online projects by blogging, and wikis and nings etc. Are we deleting this information when finished? Or at least extracting and archiving relevant info to more energy friendly storage areas to free up server space. Hmmm!! (I am not going to even try to debate if the manufacture and burning of a DVD is more energy efficient than keeping that same amount of information on a HDD).
I have been looking around for a physics/chemistry teacher that actually blogs on a regular basis with innovative, educationally sound ideas for what works with regards to technological integration in a senior level science classroom. I think maybe this is a niche I might have to try to fill (setting myself up here aren't I?)
A couple of experiences recently (see "why I make kids hand draw graphs") have stimulated some reflection which I will share with you here. First of all, I recently read Mark Prensky's post on barriers to technological adoption and adaption in classrooms and his comments on student's being digital natives reminded me of Chris Betcher's post about how the assumption that today's student is technologically competent is a myth. In a sense I agree with both of them. The "digital native" concept is very real, kids today are embedded in a world much different than the one I grew up in but as Chris points out, that does not mean we should assume they are competent. My arguement about student's own conceptions of "competency" was presented in the post mentioned previously. Sure kids are comfortable with computers but that does not mean they can use them effectively - and it is our job as educators, to integrate basic skills (like how to draw graphs properly using technology) into our classrooms.
A case in point with examples taken from my last batch of lab reports:
My point is any kid today can turn on a computer, load up a capitalist application like MS Word and type in a few sentences (two finger like because we don't teach keyboarding anymore) but I consider that unacceptable when simple features like "insert symbol" and "subscript/superscript" functions elude students. This level of technological adoption is considered doing "old things in old ways" by Prensky, the second lowest level of the progression towards "Edutopia". I argue that if the training wheels are still needed, let's send that message loud and clear and not overlook it in our quest to do "new things in new ways".
My second experience happened quite by accident (most of the best teachable moments do) and came about when I was discussing a recent assignment with a higher level physics student who graduates in June. The assignment was to use a spreadsheet (MS Excel) to model what happens to an alpha particle when it is accelerated through a potential difference. The kids were given no parameters, just an assignment to produce a number of graphs. Most students found it tough, the equations are difficult and added to that, the numbers are extremely difficult to represent graphically. They did however enjoy the challenge and provided feedback that although hard, they really understood the concept.
The product the kids produced is exceptional. For the most part (pat myself on the back here), these students are very competent with the software, and produce highly professional reports. I have spent lots of time helping them and they in turn collaborate extensively not on how to necessarily do the assignment but how to get the software to do what they want. How did this happen?
This is the third of these types of assignments they have done. The first was very simple, and the second a more complicated energy in an oscillating spring system problem. There was no plan for the sequence to be even a sequence or a progression, just me giving them suitable tasks at an appropriate time.
There is nothing fancy about this, no cool hook, no internet gadget - just kids, using a very relevant piece of (dare I say it) 20th century software, in a meaningful manner, that also created a valuable educational experience to supplement a relativity lecture. Why then do I feel like I am not "keeping up with the Jones" of edtech?
I recently read Mark Prensky's article "Adopt and Adapt: Shaping Tech for the Classroom" and thought a great deal about the context and my ongoing reflective theme "why am I, a progressive, tech-savvy educator, both enthusiastic and resistant about many of these ideas"?
I don't disagree with Prensky's message. I do not suffer from what I like to call "pedagogical inertia". I do feel uncomfortable though but by what I cannot put a definitive finger on.
Prensky wonders that by 2100, "How close will we be to Edutopia?". This sets off certain cynical alarms, because as admirable as that pursuit is, it is highly unlikely that we will ever get there. My 15 year career as an educator has seen many phase shifts - cooperative learning, PBL, UBD etc to name a few. I find it highly unlikely that given a perfect one-to-one world with tech-competent educators delivering digitally integrated and enhanced curriculum that the coming of the educational Messiah will be celebrated and no one will ever think again on how to make it better. This smells with the essence of LaPlace's (foolish) boast (by knowing the initial conditions—the position and velocity of every particle in the universe—he could, in principle, predict the future with absolute certainty) - an obligatory physics/math connection that basically stated the demise of physics research.
Mark is right on though with his 4 step process of the typical adoption of technology in schools (or for that matter - industry and society in general) - Dabbling.
- Doing old things in old ways.
- Doing old things in new ways.
- Doing new things in new ways.
I like to think that most educators are well beyond "dabbling" - at least they are in the environment I work in (which too might affect my perspective - top tier international school vs public education in Fort McNowhere USA). So moving on to "doing old things in old ways", I don't disagree with Prensky's idea that "writing, creating, submitting, and sharing work digitally on the computer via email or instant messaging (is) in the category of doing old things (communicating and exchanging) in old ways (passing stuff around)." I do however strongly agree with Chris Betcher's "myth of the digital native" and don't necessarily believe our students are as technologically competent as we think they are (see my next post) and therefore a little more time to smell the roses in this area is necessary and from the perspective of a 41 year old digital immigrant, absolutely necessary.
Although idealists like Prensky are the necessary force that drive a necessary change, a more pragmatic approach than "if we don't do this yesterday, our students are screwed" is not educationally sound in the eyes of the 50 year old teacher that is the very focus of the "no teacher left behind" educational technology program explosion. Faced with a barrage of rapidly changing tech options in education (blogs - wikis - nings), often presented with little explanation at near light speed by techies spouting gobbledy (sp?) gook - it is no wonder that "digital immigrant" teachers (even tech competent ones like myself) are being resistant to change.
I see it and feel it. You want teachers on board (because as Prensky states digital immigrants present a huge social barrier to technological adoption), put away your 7 different gadgets (cool sure but I am not really impressed), stop speaking in tongues, and create plans in schools that shift mainstream thinking gradually. Graphically I see it like this:
This is the impression mainstream educators get in terms of what is expected from people like Prensky
This is my proposal for the required perception of expections that I think will really help dismantle those barriers people like Prensky talk about
What I like best about this article is Prensky's observation that not being one-to-one is the biggest obstacle for success. Put me on the line with the sign "we need more computers NOW". I firmly believe that tech adoption will be a jerky, inconsistent process until this happens. As a school director I would insist on directing the funding here first. Maybe we won't be doing new things in new ways intially and light year leaps in test scores will not occur but trying any kind of technological adoption without one-to-one is like teaching kids to write with shared pencils. The laptop (notebook) is the binder and pencil case of the present. No more excuses please Mr. Purse Strings, just do it!
The final project assignment for the course I am taking has the following goal statement:
Goal: Develop an authentic and engaging project for your students which meets both your curricular standards and at least one of the NETS standards.
In high school science, we do not do many "projects" but rather focus on experimentation and inquiry. As much of this process develops valuable hands on laboratory skills in grades 9 and 10, I am thinking of focusing on senior classes where certain aspects of the curriculum do not easily lend themselves to experimentation in a traditional sense. I see this as an excellent opportunity to incorporate some aspects of technology.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that there are a number of opportunities within the IB Physics Relativity unit. Although I question how "authentic" in the true science research sense these opportunities are (there is very little authentic science done in schools - depending on how you define authentic), there is an opportunity to create authentic project tasks that although not typical of relativistic physics research, certainly can provide a valuable experience.
At present, my ideas include various models for relativistic vs non-relativistic physics with regards to mass, length and time variations in objects moving at near light speeds. To keep things authentic, and also to tie in with syllabus objectives, the two best ideas would be to look at particle accelerators (what happens to small (like alpha particles) in an electric field) or to recreate/simulate muon experiments that provide conclusive evidence for half-life dilation and hence special relativity theory.
Students could be given a set of parameters (probably quite broad) and be asked to model and present the results that (theoretically) would be observed. With regards to alpha particles, different groups could look at different aspects of the problem and then collaborate together to produce a comprehensive project.
Students would use spreadsheet software for the modelling exercise, and present results in a power point or other media format to the rest of the class. Each group would contribute results to an overall project composite - probably on the class WIKI. Discussion, reflection, feedback and editing can occur to "stream line" results into a concise format that would be suitable for examination review.
NETS - Standards for Students Addressed
1. Creativity and Innovation (parts c. and d.)
2. Communication and Collaboration (part a.)
3. Research and Information Fluency (part d.)
4. Critical Thinking, Problem Solving and Decision Making (part b.)
