The World According to Lucas

I’m going to be moving to my own blog site at WordPress.  I have a student-centered blog, and I’d rather just have my accounts at one place!  See my new musings there.

Technology and science are intimately related in modern society. Scientific investigations rely increasingly heavily upon the use of technological tools for more refined research. New technologies such as supercomputers and scanning electron microscopes allow for an increased level of sophistication in scientific studies, as well as the generation and analysis of higher volumes and more complex data sets. In this way, technology is a tool of science. It supports investigations and may play a central role, but in the end it is a support. Additionally, technology is a product of science. Following the adage, “Necessity is the mother of invention,” scientists sometimes require some way of perceiving information that was previously not available, and so new technologies are born to suit those needs.
With the roles of technology and science thus defined, I must turn to the question of who should be exposed to the uses of technology and what social problems may arise due to inequitable allocations of funds for technology, particularly with school-age children. If one of the goals of science education is to prepare some students for future careers in science and another goal is to prepare all students to be thoughtful and informed citizens, then all students must be exposed, at least in part, to the uses of technology in scientific investigations. As technology plays such a central role in science and the students are developing their identities as scientists (Gee), they need to be the ones utilizing those technologies. Demonstrations, while useful, do not place technology into the hands of those who need to use it; teachers must ensure that students are the ones holding technology.

This is one of the reasons the camp was so successful. We told the students that we had probes available and showed them how they turned on and off, how to scroll through functions, and briefly what the numbers meant. Then the kids took the technology in their own hands and experimented. They found working ranges of values for temperatures, dissolved oxygen, and other variables. At this point in their experiments, they were free to decide how to utilize these probes in their own investigations. Being that authentic inquiry is driven by the students, this was the perfect opportunity to integrate technology with inquiry. The students made models, tested their models, and presented their findings. Every step along the way integrated different uses of technology, and that technology was in their hands. From probes to microscopes to PowerPoints, the students had control of their experiments.
As I step into my position teaching Earth Science and Physical Science, I must bear these beliefs in all of my classes and through planning with the other teachers. The school has a great amount of technology available for use. A question I must pursue is how the technology is generally utilized and what rules the school has concerning its use. I am somewhat nervous about implementing anything innovative, because I know that all of the science teachers for a given grade have their students doing the same worksheets on the same days. If I burst in with completely different lessons than the rest of the team, then I can expect to not remain for long. I suppose it all comes down to how I can present how valuable student use of technology really is. A wide variety of classwork must also be associated with technologies, not just some infrequent lab assignments. I foresee some long-term investigations utilizing technologies as well as non-scientific uses of technologies as Orlando discusses. I anticipate using blogging, podcasts, online scientific reviews, and other technologies for students to learn more about their world. This, finally, is the thrust of my beliefs about technology and school. Technology must primarily be wielded by the students, but those technologies must be varied to include science research as well as general life awareness. My students will live in a more technologically advanced society than I have, and so any opportunities they have to utilize technologies will be good for them.

This week was amazing. I honestly did not expect much, as we didn’t even know if we would actually have any students until like 2 days beforehand. That sort of thing always makes me nervous, but we had our activities planned nonetheless. In an ideal world we would have known our audience ahead of time and so tailored the activities a little more closely to their understandings and abilities. In the end, though, it worked out okay.
I have to agree with Orlando on a few counts. The last day was an awesome experience. It was the culmination of all the hard work they had done and it really wrapped up the whole week. They got to present to not only their parents and ourselves, but also university folks and the press! At one point one of my students was a little wary of someone taking photos until I asked him, “What? You don’t want to be in the D&C? That’s the science writer!” He was really excited by that and went straight over and started posing. Hilarious!
I would have appreciated coming back together as a group with just us and the kids after presenting. It would have afforded the opportunity to get a more full reflection of the week and some feedback. Feedback for us about how we ran the camp, feedback for them about what they did, and reflections about what lessons were learned.
One thing that seemed to be lacking from the camp entirely was a structure for feedback on thoughts from outside of the camp. We did hear from many parents that their kids came home saying that they loved the camp and the instructors and all of that, but I think it would have been much more constructive for all involved if there were a solid place for feedback. One idea might be a blog to which instructors post reflections from the day and parents and kids can respond. For those who might not have internet access at home the time might be provided at the school.
I liked that we spoke directly to the nature of science (at least some of it). I realize the thrust of this camp was around utilizing technology as an aid into authentic investigations in science. Adding the little bit of theory about “science” that we did was icing on the cake. Super idea to include the NOS Cube activity!

As an aside, I was at Wegman’s this morning doing grocery shopping when somebody stopped me in the pasta aisle. He asked if I was at Strong last week, then refined it by saying the U of R. I said that I was a student at Warner at the U of R, and I’ve been there quite a bit. Then he said that it was for a science camp thing that his kids were in. I recognized him then and he said his kids names, and that they couldn’t stop raving about how much fun they had there. He said that he had been worried as his son had missed the first day but after the second day the son was just so excited and thrilled to be there, even with his sister! I told him to let his kids know that we all said hi and that we miss them too.

Today was my day to guide. However, they really had a lot of stuff to get through so I wanted to minimize the time that I spent processing with the whole group. Comes a time when you just need to say, “Okay, go to it.” And that’s what today was. I started with “good presentation/bad presentation.” This really set the stage for the rest of the time. The kids really bought into it- some started remarking later that they didn’t want to “be a Greg” (since he was the one with the bad presentation).
After that, the groups were pretty much set free to work on their analyses. They were set up at pairs of computers around the tech lab so they could work in sub-groups. We had to help our groups a little bit with Excel, and I had to tell the kids in our group what buttons to press to create the graphs, as they simply weren’t experienced with it at all. I noticed that all of the groups were working at different paces, so there was not going to be a chance to regroup the entire class, which was fine. I tried to let all the leaders know that there was an assessment piece to try to get to by the end of the period, however. I also let them all know that I had created a template in case their students were getting stuck on how to lay out a PowerPoint presentation. For our group that was a valuable scaffold, since they didn’t know what parts needed to be discussed and easily were getting distracted.
Our group worked very hard on getting their presentation done today. I think we let them know that was the expectation right up front, and so their playing was pretty well tempered with work. Once we got the presentation done and in order, we set it up on the projector and did a run-through. This turned out to be extremely valuable. Some of the text and images looked great on the computer, but once projected we just couldn’t see what they said. So we were able to make some adjustments before the actual presentation. Harsimrat and I role-played some spectators, and challenged the girls to think about how they were presenting and to make sure they were doing a “good presentation.” They also had a lot of fun playing with the SmartBoard (and so did I!). It was a good decompression time; they got to play around with the technology without having a lot of pressure to get something finished.
We did get around to the assessment with our group:
-What does a good presentation look like?
-What does a bad presentation look like?
-What are some different ways of presenting data?
-How is presenting information important for science?!
We had a short discussion around each of the questions, and I liked how they were being challenged to think for themselves. These assessment questions served two purposes (I love when assessments do that!). One, it let us know what the kids know about the subject. Two, it prepared them for tomorrow’s activity- the real presentation! We let them know that we would have them get out their journals tomorrow to refresh their memories about what they’d like their presentation to be like. We’ll see!

Today was a key day for our study. Not only did the students get to look at their bacteria samples and gather information, but they also got to start perceiving how science is more than just the information it generates. Starting with the NOS cube activity was really cool. They started off with their list of what they thought science is, then we ran through the activity (just focusing on the tentative nature of science), and then made a final list of what science is all about. It was great seeing how their conceptions changed in such a short amount of time!
I was also really glad that we started hammering in some of the lab safety stuff. It’s just really important to take some time out of the schedule of “what needs to get done!” and go over safety. It really pays off in the end, especially when the kids start pointing out things that you might be doing wrong. (”Orlando! You shouldn’t eat that plum off the floor!”)

It was also great getting them all dressed up as “scientists”. Despite the nature of our study not really requiring a whole lot of dress-up, it was fun watching them in their lab coats with the glasses on. I think it really changed their perceptions of who they were and what they were doing. Seemed they really took on the role of scientist, and they enjoyed it.
We didn’t get around to analyzing any of our data today, so tomorrow is going to be a little crammed full! Data analysis, reflections about models, and completely creating presentations!

Today was a really cool day. It was great that we had some new arrivals and they got caught up to speed. They seemed really enthusiastic about being there. It was also great that the kids were so into doing the research. We sat them down for about 15 minutes to talk about their models and how exactly they were going to go through with their plan. The group definitely had things pretty straight in their minds. Then we went down to the beach and we were supposed to share with everybody. Perhaps a lesson learned for next time is to not have sharing so close to where they would be working. The new group was learning the probes in the water, and so all everybody wanted to do was just jump in and get going. There was also the noise factor from the waves and such. They really seemed to have some difficulty hearing each other. However, it was good because the kids knew they had to talk about their models and how they would go about researching, so they were prepared.
After talking, they got right into measuring. Our group knew exactly what they wanted to do, and they took turns with each variable. We had two Explorers for the two different variables (pH and DO), and one person working on getting Whirlypaks done. So they traded off every couple of locations, because some really wanted to do the Whirlypaks. It seemed like they got done in record time. We finished down at the furthest lifeguard chair, so they took off their waders and enjoyed the water. Then, of course, they had to carry the waders all the way back down the beach; trudging through the sand carrying these heavy boots was really fun to watch! I think they were really happy when it was over, though.

It was like 100 degrees today, which is always a difficult challenge. They really knew it was hot when they saw the groundhog hiding in the shade of some broken steps.

Definitely a good way to wrap up everything was to take them to Abbot’s. It really boosted morale, not that it really needed it that much, but it helped. It also gave the kids a chance to sit down and talk some more about themselves, let them all get to know each other a little better. It was nice seeing that kind of interaction.
Tomorrow is lab day, and Thursday is data processing/presentation creation day. I’m really worried that after the fast pace and fun stuff outside these next two days might not be as well-received.

Today was really cool! I was nervous about even having any kids at all, so I’m really pleased with the turnout. Eleven was a very workable number- you can’t ask for a better ratio. Too many more and it would be hectic, too many less and it would be really awkward. I loved how the modeling experience ran. The kids were able to discuss their ideas and begin thinking about modeling as an abstract with such a solid, hands-on experience with physical models. They showed they were into it because they were so chatty!
I also really enjoyed the time they had to just go in the water and play with the probes. I had to explain some things as we went, because some knew what pH was, others didn’t. Unfortunately, those who did know weren’t really able to explain it in a way that made sense for those who did not. I was also very surprised when they immediately made the connection between dissolved oxygen and theoretical bacterial counts! One student’s line of thinking, “Well, if there’s less oxygen for the fish to breathe, they will die. When things die bacteria come and eat them. So, if there’s less oxygen there should be more bacteria.” WOW! Needless to say, that is going to be a very important aspect of their research tomorrow. I just had to help guide them into making their distances a little longer. They wanted to take water samples every five feet. As the male student in our group put it, “It gives a lot of data, so you can make connections and figure out a lot of things.” Hmmm… perhaps too much data?! So we settled on near the pier, about halfway to lifeguard post #5, then every other lifeguard seat. It should rock. Unless there’s an electrical storm. Then our one day of data collection would be down the tubes. Wish us luck!

Students from Group 3 checking out the water quality at the beach!

Chinn and Malhotra present their argument about how authentic scientific inquiry is not being accomplished by ‘inquiry tasks’ in school science classes. Essentially they state that inquiry tasks in schools need to be modified so that they more closely approximate authentic science. They claim that activities such as controlling variables, generating explanations, and providing evidence, although important, are not unique to inquiry. The essential difference between authentic scientific inquiry and simple inquiry tasks is that authentic inquiry is complex, requires expensive equipment, involves elaborate theories, and sophisticated expertise. Simple inquiry tasks attempt to drive at the most important core concepts within those larger tasks at a much lower cost and with fewer resources. Another aspect of authentic inquiry is that in being socially constructed knowledge it includes research of previous experiences of knowledgeable others. They claim that school science does not do this.
They boil the problem with school science down as, “Learning an oversimplified version of scientific reasoning will not help with real world reasoning tasks (p 214).”
My initial reaction is that this is a great starting point for making some well-needed changes in school science classes. This article calls for school science to more closely resemble authentic scientific inquiry and even provides an extensive table indicating what types of tasks are most commonly seen in inquiry. I hope to include many open-ended investigations when I begin teaching next year, and this list will help me remember what changes might be necessary as I try to work through the textbook-dictated short tasks.
Thinking about my job that I have lined up brought me back to reality. The first question that I came up with was, is the real goal of school science to prepare all students for authentic scientific inquiry? Aren’t inquiry tasks alone sufficient to get the less-interested enough background to get by as citizens? More importantly, how can true, open-ended, authentic inquiry occur in schools when they are being directed by high stakes testing? With a Regents™ exam at the end of each course, is there really any hope of passing “the” exam if the year is spent doing really good science? Will students be able to make the jump backwards from doing really good science to working well on someone else’s multiple choice questions about content knowledge? Isn’t the point of high school science to let students learn the background knowledge so that they can perform higher-order investigations later, as in college when they choose a major (assuming they go to college)? High school might be seen as part of the social aspect of college investigations- this is the time when they learn the histories of theories and the points of view of knowledgeable others, so that investigations may be more well-informed later in life.
It is extremely difficult trying to strike a balance between what is really good science and what is being called for by high stakes testing. So long as those limits are placed on education, I contend that true science will never have a long-lasting place in high school. People such as Warner grads may try it for a while, but in the end failing scores will force them to modify their programs to incorporate more traditional content. I hate to have such a dismal outlook at this point, but I have yet to see how it can be otherwise.

The four types of models, as laid out by Lehrer and Schauble (2000), are:
-Physical models
-Representational models
-Syntactic models
-Hypothetical-Deductive models

Models are representations of how some concept operates, offering a fairly thorough insight into variables affecting that concept and acknowledges potential flaws or errors. I think that in having students lay out a model of some operation ahead of experimentation allows for a more creative process, as well as providing a framework for recognizing potential challenges or changes during the actual experimentation phase. For example, we developed a model in class about how the Genesee River might affect Durand-Eastman Beach. It was pretty specific, and we tried to think of what all the influences might be. We also recognized that there were some limiting factors and potential challenges to our model, and we chose a certain stance. We said that the effect from the bounding streams would be nearly negligible when compared to the Genesee because of the sheer size of the river. However, when we went into the field, Greg and I noticed right away that those two little streams seemed to be having a huge impact on the first couple of sample sites. I imagine our model may need some significant revision. The important part, however, is that we established a framework ahead of time. By doing this, we prepared ourselves for taking measurements and what they might mean in the context of the study. Modeling thus aids inquiry by helping focus imagination and creativity. When used in a social sense (as was the case in our class coming to concensus), it aids in the social construction of knowledge; our individual understandings of the situation were driven very strongly by the group discussion.

Along with modeling as an effective means of having students construct knowledge, the use of technologies also has a central role in a good science classroom. I liked how Flick and Bell (2000) remarked about how technology should be used in a science classroom not just for the sake of using technology, but because using technology is a central aspect of scientific pursuit. I also appreciate how they insist that technology is not the driving force; preservice teachers should not be given a generic “here’s technology” class and then left to create lessons around that. The way learning technology should go is to see it completely integrated in meaningful scientific pursuit. In our instance, learning the probeware, GoogleEarth, GPS, blogging, smartboard, etc is central to, but not the focus of, our class. The real question is what the problems are at the beaches and what we can do about it. The technology is there to support that investigation.

I arbitrarily labeled the sites A-H going from east to west, since that was our “known” location. As with all good science, we noticed some weird readings close to those streams so we just decided to take some reading actually in them. We can include them later if we wish to really firm up whatever conclusions we wish to draw. I labeled them “stream AA” for the one furthest east and “stream I” for the one furthest west. I went rowing near the University shortly afterward and decided to pull out the probes and took some readings there; if they turn out to be worth anything then we can use them. Overall, an excellent day for being on the beach, doing science! We got a method down and the sampling started going extremely quickly. See Greg and Kate there tomorrow!