I am thinking about writing a book....

I am thinking about writing a book but am not sure of a few things.

1. Do I have enough great ideas to fill a couple hundred pages? 
2. Would people want to know about the aforementioned great ideas?
3. Can I write a book on STEM education that doesn't put readers to sleep after 5 pages?
4. Can I get anyone to read 5 pages?

Anyway, my thought is to try to put something together on what it means to teach STEM through solid instructional practices and coherent content. Kind of a STEM teaching 101 in terms of what is out there right now. What are teachers talking about in science teaching, math teaching, technology teaching, engineering? I am thinking of something along the lines of what would happen if an industrial arts teacher talked with a math teacher, who talked with a science or technology teacher. I think the pedagogy they have are defined as different, but fundamentally similar. I have a brief outline and have started on the prologue. I am not sure if my tone would be accepted by publishers of educational texts, but I really believe that I can put some useful facts and ideas between well-placed puns and admin jokes. 

I would really appreciate some comments on this one as I could be on to something, or just thinking of putting in a lot of time for nothing. Here is some of what I have so far in a very rough draft form. I would be expanding on may of these ideas with some research to back up my ravings.  If you are saying, "Hell that needs a LOT of work to be published" you are right it does. This was written in a single sitting and needs some serious re-writes. My hope is that you read it and say. "Hell, that needs a LOT of work to be published, but with that work, I would like to read more."

STEM BOOK
(working title, duh)

Prologue

I have a vision of the year 1500, where a young 17 year old Copernicus comes home late for dinner. I imagine him wanting terribly to see what was outside Prussia, asking his parents repeatedly for a vacation to the Mediterranean. I see him, a normal teenager, fighting pimples, getting in trouble with his brothers and sisters, and begging his merchant father for that ornate codpiece to impress that blonde in his morning arithmetic class. I wonder if his parents ever had enough of his questioning? I can see them exclaiming, “Copernicus, you need to realize that the Earth does NOT revolve around you!”

I am pretty sure that is how the renaissance started, even though I have no evidence to support it. Regardless of it’s origins, the renaissance did gave us some great characters to admire and emulate. It gave us Galileo and Descartes, live-action role playing (LARPing) and names for our ninja turtles. It gave us paintings of naked angels, sculptures of naked men, the demotion of our own planet (sorry Pluto, your time was coming), and a method for systematically doing science.

Before the Renaissance, it was Aristotle’s world. As far as “natural philosophy” was concerned, if Aristotle didn’t say it, it wasn’t true. For a couple thousand years our world ran on the ideas of the man who created logic. He was Einstein, Hawking, Brad Pitt, and Jesus wrapped into one. If you dared have an ideas that was contrary to his ancient Greek philosophy, you might as well pencil yourself in for a Saturday with the Inquisition....and don’t plan anything for Sunday. If you don’t believe me, ask Galileo how it turned out for him.

Fortunately the noble and courageous efforts of the people of the Renaissance developed a method for dealing with Aristotle’s logic. Premises of arguments were renamed “data” and inferences were labeled “hypotheses”. The last natural philosophers developed and refined a process they called the scientific method. It outlined a step-by-step process for solving problems that people observed around them. It has given us cures for diseases, trips to the moon, and an understanding of the fundamental pieces of the universe.

The world has run on the principles of these dead white men for 600 years. It is time to rethink our understanding of what science is and how it is done? Today we have new technologies, engineering and mathematical understandings, and teaching techniques that fit together with science principles like the Mendel’s peas in a pod. It may be time to throw back the curtain and examine what science has turned into and how it is being taught.

How you should read this book.

First off, realize this soon to be classic literature you have in your hand was not intended as a judgement on what is currently understood or taught in science classrooms across the nation. It is offered as a frank look at what is currently happening in our scientific culture and schools, coupled with some fifty-cent jokes and puns I got off Twitter (#notreally). It is my hope that first and foremost, the quips are interesting enough so as to grab your attention long enough for you to get a hold of some information that will alter or reinforce an opinion you have about teaching and learning science in our schools. I am not offering this as gospel, simply some observations where you can draw your own conclusions.

In preparing for this book, I of course, did a comprehensive study of the relevant literature. In fact, I typed “science STEM teaching” into Amazon and read a lot of summaries… okay a few summaries…. okay I looked at some titles and decided that people may want to read a book that doesn’t put them to sleep. I have lot of books, or really a lot of pages in books that I haven’t read. I usually get through the first couple of chapters and realize that the twenty minutes I just devoted to this read was really a waste of time. I want to right the wrongs of the dozens of pristine, yet dust covered pedagogical texts that line my office. I have decided that if I am going to put my time into writing this, it should be something that you may enjoy reading. I know it is a novel idea.

I offer to you the 10 Commandments I am putting forward to myself in writing the next two hundred odd pages.

1. Thou shalt back up any claims with evidence
2. Thou shalt not rely heavily on research that has not been tested and peer-reviewed
3. Thou shalt not covet another Acronym other than STEM (it’s in the title)
4. Thou shalt not create a new pedagogy that is really just renaming someone else’s work and calling it thy own to sell a book
5. Thou shalt not be boring or tedious
6. Thou shalt give teachers ideas they can use in their classroom tomorrow
7. Thou shalt think of three other commandments before I finish this book.

Making an Acronym

Scientific advancements alter history; it comes with the job, like lifeguarding and skin cancer. In 1957, a group of Russian scientists (many captured from Germany after WWII) shocked the world by designing a large ball that beeps and placing it on a rocket. Sputnik changed the world by metaphorically sticking up it’s large metallic middle  finger at the United States. That doesn’t sit well in the land of the free. Up to that point, the US had been the leader of the world in science and technology, punctuated with two atomic bombs to remind the last country that messed with us who was on top.  

America does not play second fiddle to anyone, our ego is too large for that. The flags rose, trumpets blared, and the battle cry was again sounded for America’s scientists to answer our collective id’s call for vindication and the space race was on. President Eisenhower led the charge with a radio address where he heralded,

“Of course, free men are meeting and will meet this challenge. Up to a point, this must be done on the Communists' own terms--outmatching them in military power, general technological advance, and specialized education and research.”

President Kennedy took the reins of the scientific stampede and put a man on the moon in the 60’s, a feat that would have never been possible without the Russians throwing down the space gauntlet. America’s workforce was again churning out scientists and engineers at an alarming rate.

Wow, look at the early 80’s! It is no wonder there were so many advances in areas like  walkable music and nylon pants. Many of the engineers and teachers in those times were getting their degrees paid for through programs funded by the government, special interest groups, or industries trying to keep up with rising tide of American scientists.

Then the floor fell out. We won the space race, flew the Voyager probes, and were left twiddling our really smart thumbs. Schools began to realize that by supporting teachers getting advanced degrees in sciences brought with it a very big problem. Teachers got advanced degrees in science! They were leaving teaching and taking jobs in industry, leaving schools back at square one. Colleges stopped offering programs in hard core science disciplines in favor of advanced degrees in ‘science teaching’ and ‘instructional technology’. It was virtually impossible for a teacher to get an advanced degree in science in the early 21st century. Lab classes were not offered during the evenings, and core classes were not offered during the summers. Professors were doing their own research during this time and could not be bothered by people who already had their own jobs.

Then the information age hit our world like a dino-killing asteroid. Jobs were being created that no one could predict would exist, let alone prepare students. Isaac Asimov could not predict the number of web designers and dot com companies that were popping up across the country. Money was being made, technical skills were being awarded, and schools were again trying to crystal ball what they should be teaching. They tried new approaches, innovative lessons, and teaching pedagogy, all restrained in their model of schooling that had proven itself worthy through the last two hundred years. 

What are schools to do when there is a demand for scientific and technological skills tied to math and engineering practices? Schools were asked to help shape the world again, so they sharpened their pencils, laced up their gym shoes, and accepted the challenge. When faced with such a demanding problem, the National Science Foundation in the 1990’s responded with a method that they had formulated refined for over three decades. They created an acronym!

STEM

STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. That is a large order for a simple set of letters.........

Imagine then a long dialog into defining what STEM is fundamentally, etc, etc, etc. What do you think? Give it up or keep writing? Are you intrigued enough to read more of my blabber for a hundred or so pages? I am open to all feedback, constructive or the kind that rips a man's heart out and steps on his hopes and dreams;)

Chris

@christopherlike

STEAM- New Buzzword, or Game Changer

In the fall of 2014, I was hired as our district’s STEAM coordinator. As May of the previous school year comes to a close, I find myself in front of my science classroom for the last time. I was trying to explain to them that they would have someone else teaching them AP Physics next year as I was taking on curriculum duties as our STEAM coordinator. I will never forget that look of confusion on their faces in part because after I tried to explain the acronym, I found that same look painted across my face.

I got nervous fast. While I was jacked to be starting this new journey as our district’s STEAM expert, I couldn't deny that a part of me had no clue what I was getting into.

I had a problem. What exactly is STEM? And where the hell did this A come from?

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, that is STEM, or at least was my definition at the time. I was a physics teacher, highly respected in my field, and very successful with students. I had to be doing this already, didn't I? Science is in fact the first letter, that had to mean something…. there was math in physics, and engineering and technology too! I had this locked, no problem.

Then I started to think about it some more. What exactly is science? The running definition in my head was that it was a method for understanding the world around us. It began with a research question then utilized data to find relationships between variables. There were graphs, equations, definitions, and statistical significance that led us to understanding how we evolve, or how stars blow themselves up. Science was my bread and butter. Toss me a scientific law and BAM I am there with a fifteen minute lecture... Dalton's Laws- no problem, Newton's equation- cake walk, anthropic principle- I can dig it. If it is one thing I am comfortable with, it's science. Bring it on, STEM, I got your first letter locked!

T?

I had a professor once tell me that a chalkboard is technology. It is a device used to help us. So is a broom, and a telescope, and a computer. Everyone gets so caught up in tablets, apps, presentation software, and smartphones, that they seem to miss out on what technology really is. A rock was technology a couple million years ago when you wanted to open a coconut. Learning technology is about troubleshooting a device to make it work for you better or more efficiently. It is not only computers, it is about sharpening that rock.

If the rock doesn't work, bash the coconut against a tree. Now you are talking like an engineer. If science starts with a research question, engineering starts with a need to be addressed. How similar is that?! Engineers solve problems, they make our lives better. They develop technology, sometimes to answer a scientific question (oh the connections). There are construction engineers, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, aerospace engineers, and even food engineers. They see problems and they solve them. They may be putting men on the moon, or just giving them something to drink while up there (I am looking at you Tang).

A friend of mine from a close university, a physicist no doubt, once told me that we should not bother teaching high school students science. He said that is easy. We should be teaching them more math and some computer coding. Those, he said, were the language of science. If a student came to him at University not understanding the Law of Partial Pressures, he could probably talk them through it. However, without math skills, and to an extent coding, he couldn't even hold a conversation with them. Math was the language of science. Graphing, equations, statistics, and probability were essential in all disciplines of science. Without a firm understanding of math, a science lecture may as well be spoken in Greek.

So what is STEM? I think it depends on who you are talking too. To an educator, we are looking to mold students into thinkers, innovators…. the superhero leaders of tomorrow’s industry. We are striving for another (or first) Tony Stark, or would even settle for a genius super villain engineer. We know that technological innovation and advancing science will drive our nation’s economic growth and keep us competitive globally. We want to prepare students for fields that are not even invented yet. We crystal ball a future where workers use the letters in our acronym consistently and interchangeably to solve our world's problems. We have growing problems of not enough space on this rock, fewer and fewer resources and energy. We know in the back of our minds that the human race can not continue to expand at the rate we are making babies without altering the ways in which we do things. The problems will be there, we just don't know what they are right now.

Industry has a different definition. They could care less about the future; they need workers right now. They need problem solvers in jobs they can’t fill today. They need workers with technical skills, math ability, troubleshooting experience, and work ethic. They need employees who can work in a team, towards a goal. They need a workforce with STEM skills.

Surprisingly, politicians and lawmakers actually find themselves more in line with educators on this, at least to the extent of agreeing on the goal of STEM. They see it as a pathway to economic growth and global competitiveness. Sometimes their policies don’t quite match with an educator’s goals, but their intentions are at least blatant.  

Then there is the A…. Where did the A come from? If STEM was not enough, we are adding the Arts into the soup. Pushed by the Rhode Island School of design, this capital A is probably the my biggest worry. I sat in a lecture last year at our state science conference where a professor did a study of Nobel Prize winners and other various intellectuals. As it turns out most of the great thinkers of our age were very vested in some kind of art or design field. It was the first time I had heard of STEAM. To me, the fact that Einstein played a violin doesn't hold a lot of validity in an argument for including the arts in STEM. Then a few weeks ago I was introduced to the Wallet Project out of Stanford’s college of design. First off, I didn't even realize that any college of design actually exist. Once I left the workshop, my perfectly designed foam wallet in pocket, there was no doubt in my mind that design and the arts are an integral part of innovation.

So here I sit, trying to piece all this together into what STEAM means to me, to my district, the teachers I work with, and the students I work for. Putting the pieces together reveals a picture that is both grand and awe-inspiring. The theme of innovation is interwoven through problem solving by design. Using complex skills, content, and processes our students will someday move this world forward. It is our job to prepare them for what is out there for them right now as well as what has not been thought of yet.

STEAM is a buzzword. It's a pathway toward funding, resources, and a link from schools to industry. It is all-encompassing, and yet strictly defined by a set of principles. Many I speak with say we are already doing these things; we just have not labeled it with this decade's lingo. I believe that is true to an extent, but the doors an acronym can open are extensive.

Please share your comments below.

Chris
@christopherlike

Should Iowa Adopt the Next Generation Science Standards?

This last fall, I was given the opportunity to sit on an Iowa Department of Education task force looking at the question of whether my state should adopt the Next Generation Science Standards in place of our current Iowa Core Standards in Science. The committee consisted of about 20 people from across the state who represented various interest groups. There were some teachers, students, parents, professors, STEM coordinators, DE people, and even a congresswoman or two. After three meetings in Des Moines, I can tell you that the group of professionals called to action in this committee were at the top of their game. I have the utmost respect for each of them and their opinions (even those I disagreed with). They were passionate, without an agenda, and highly concerned about the direction Iowa should go in terms of it's science standards. In the end, the committee voted to recommend that Iowa does adopt these standards, but there was some hesitation in many members.

That being said, let me give you my thoughts, reservations, and hopes for our state.

I went into this thing a blank slate. Overall, I am not the biggest fan of standards in general. As I have said before, I believe that they stifle creativity for teachers, limit student choice as to elective classes, and rarely fit with what I think should be taught in high school. But.... as we are stuck with having to adopt something, I was willing to give them an ear and keep an open mind.

Spoiler alert: I voted that the state should adopt, but I had reservations. Let me explain my thoughts here.

Why the State should adopt:

In looking at a comparison between the Iowa Core and the NGSS, there were a few distinctions that stood out in my mind. First was the research they were based on. I am not a fan of educational research in general, (its all soft science) but am aware that there are many out there that know more about it than I do. Both of the standards documents are research based. The NGSS follows the Framework for Science Education published in 2012, which was based on the last decade's research in how science should be taught. The Iowa Core was based on the original National Science Standards document that came out in the mid 80's which means the research behind it was probably done in the late 70's. This was before we had computers! Score 1 NGSS.

The second interesting fact about the Iowa Core came when a panel of the actual writers sat before us. They were understandably proud of their document. They spent hours of their life in working through its intricacies, and themes. However, there really were only a handful of them, and they had other jobs. They consistently told us that if they had more time, money, and support, they would have developed something similar to the NGSS. I am proud of a lot of what I write, but I know that if I didn't have a day job and could devote my time to, say this blog, it probably be funnier, and make a lot more sense than it does.

Third was the PD piece. The Iowa Core, to me, was not implemented with fidelity. Our state had switched gears to many times, altered what they wanted, and finally failed to assess anything. 2013 was the year where science was supposed to comply with the standards placed in the core. Most of us teachers are completely surprised we made it this far. Many science teachers tried to put our heads in the sand and wait for it to go away. With the NGSS, you can't do that. It calls for a complete revamp in what is taught, when it is taught, and how it is taught. This scares the hell out of me.

In the end, it is my hope that the State of Iowa does adopt these standards in their entirety. The NGSS is not designed to be a document that you can not take apart and use pieces and parts. It is a full curriculum of standards that demand integration of the disciplines traditionally held apart. To do this, however, calls for a strenuous change to the current status quo in science teaching. Are the teachers, administrators, and state officials in Iowa ready or willing to make this change? Is the political climate that surrounds these kinds of decisions too charges for our legislators?

Please comment on your thoughts below.

Chris
@christopherlike