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

Leaving the Classroom

I am leaving the classroom.

I am currently teaching my last set of students.

Today I am giving my Unit 2 Astronomy exam for the last time, tomorrow I will be introducing my Galaxy Fleet Gamification for the last time.

Dennis asked me for a pencil to take the test... that is probably not the last time.

It may sound as if I am leaving with a heavy heart and I can not deny that that is true. I will miss the kids, I will miss their stories, their worries, their struggles, the relationships I have not yet built. There is something special about having a classroom full of students to help guide through exciting times in their lives. I would not have gotten into this profession if I didn't believe in kids. I know I have made a difference in specific student's lives. They have told me and that is probably the most endearing compliment a teacher can get.

I am not asking for sympathy, I chose to leave.

My district was awarded a grant to develop a system for teacher leadership. I have accepted a position as our district's STEAM coordinator and I can't be more excited about the possibilities this holds. Unfortunately this position has pulled me completely out of the classroom, to which I regret, but the work ahead of me is both exciting and new.

I will be working with teachers, not directly with students. Can I develop the same kind of relationships with adults that I have had with kids? Probably not, but I plan on giving it the old college try!

What does a STEAM coordinator do? I am asking myself the same question. As this is a new position, I have the daunting and exciting task of defining the job. Having not worked a day in the position, it is hard for me to say what can be done, but I have some goals.

1. I plan on coordinating curriculum K12 in all aspects of STEAM. Not only making sure that the levels (elementary, middle, and high) are sequenced, but set to standards and measured appropriately. I believe I will have a unique perspective in being able to see more cross-curricular connections between all aspects of STEAM. (I have some ideas about having our elementary gym teachers measuring times for runs and then kids calculating their speeds. Can you imagine that, doing math and science in gym class?)
2. I plan on bringing the community into our schools. We have very strong community support for our school and I plan on capitalizing on that. Lets bring in some engineers to work with some of our classes or clubs. Lets get students networking with industry through internships and job shadowing. 
3. I want to increase the participation and availability of STEAM activities after school. We have a strong commitment at the high school to our science club competitions. I would like to see that expanded to our other levels. We have a respected team at middle levels in lego robotics. How can I help bring that the to high school? What can we do at the elementary level?
4. I plan on training our teachers in both content and pedagogy to help them meet the standards set by the district. Some of our elementary teachers are not comfortable teaching science. I plan on showing them that science is fun, engaging, and an avenue to teach reading, math, and thinking skills. Teachers at all levels need exposed to what is new in teaching methods. We have flipped classrooms, modelling, learning cycles, 1:1, and a myriad of other models to put in our teaching toolbox. I plan on giving them exposure to what works for them individually. 
5. Technology at all levels is ever changing and teachers need to be brought up to speed on its best use. 

If there is one thing that I don't lack, it's ambition. (In my spare time I plan on curing cancer and working on world peace) These are the goals I have set for myself. They are lofty, but they are important. I can not accomplish these alone. I will need help from the great teachers around me, and you, whoever you are that took the time to read this. If you are a teacher, please share your thoughts on what you would like from a STEAM coordinator. If you are already in this position, please contact me and we can share ideas. 

It is an exciting time for my district and me personally. To accomplish these goals will take time, patience, and a lot of endurance. However I will have 8 hours a day, every day to work on this. When I look at all that I do in the classroom in terms of planning, grading, delivering, and collaborating on instruction, these 5 seem more than workable. Perhaps I will have to add a few more goals:)

Chris

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

What I Don't Know...and Some of What I Do

I was recently asked to post to a blog we are using in my building. I thought I would share it with anyone reading this blog as well. 

For more posts from teachers at Bettendorf High, click here.

Enjoy

What I Don't Know...and Some of What I Do

Confession time…..

I don’t know where I stand on climate change. There I said it, what a relief! I have read a lot of scientific articles, looked at a lot of graphs, know quite a bit about scientific principles that govern such things, but even with all of this background I am still unable to make any kind of firm stand. What is even more interesting though, is that it doesn't bother me. Let me clarify that.  If the glaciers are going to melt and drown all of Florida, I do care. (#Disneytripplanned) What I am content with is my ability to say that I haven’t developed an opinion. As it turns out, I am completely undecided about a great many things. I don’t have firm stands on ethanol production, string theory, or if Snookie should have been kicked off of Dancing with the Stars (#neededtogo). On these examples, I am comfortable saying that I don’t know the full story on the environmental impacts surrounding ethanol plants, the mathematics for a universe with 13 dimensions, or why it is important to keep your toes pointed when performing an Argentine tango. It is not that I don’t care about these topics, in fact I do a great deal. Its just that right now I do not feel that I have the background on these subjects to make an informed decision… and THAT’S OKAY. I refuse to feign a belief in an idea if I am not educated about it (#notapolitician).

Ignorance is bliss.

It truly is. I am not talking about stupidity, or a blatant disrespect of basic facts. I am a firm believer than in order to develop an opinion, one has to do the research. Content is an integral part of schooling and learning. I am talking about the unknown. I am referring to being ignorant of the unexplored, the unimagined, or the mystifying. This is what interests me; this is why I learn… and given enough interest, there is nothing I can’t learn. I believe our students also crave mystery more than rote learning. The unknown is a crucial part of schooling that I think doesn't get enough attention. So often, we as teachers fall into the trap of treating our profession as a delivery system. The kids sit in plastic seats and we feed them information. At this, we are experts. We add garnish to our lessons with flashy technology, code it with pedagogical jargon, and celebrate any tiny upward variance in standardized test scores.

Where does the unknown fit in? There is still a lot of the world that we are truly in the dark about (Yeah, I am looking at you gravity.) When a bunch of physics teachers get together to chat, we don’t discuss Newton’s Laws, we talk about what we DON’T know. Give me quantum gravity, neutrino fluctuations, or the rules regarding an Oxford Comma and watch the cognitive party start! Last night my son and I spent 30 minutes discussing why mayonnaise sales have grossly outnumbered salsa in the US. Who knew? (#ketchup3rd #getinthegameheinz) Discussions about what you already know doesn't yield anything. I am constantly focused on what I don’t know. Now think about topics kids are truly ignorant about.

Lucky for us, most students are truly ignorant about a great many things. (#quoteme)

Finding ignorance is not a problem for teachers. The problem we face as teachers of all levels is at some point in time, their natural curiosity about the world was diminished. They don’t even care that they are ignorant. That’s the problem. I want to learn, I want to grow, I want to hear your point of view. When or why are our students losing this drive? Why are they so complacent in their development?

How this has happened, or why it happens can be argued. As I have the keyboard here, I will give you some of my take on the matter (#feelfreetodisagree). I think that this push for standards, state and federal control of curriculum, and the external pressures placed on teachers are strangling our system. Teaching is, by its nature, creative. To be effective, curriculum needs to be adaptive, based on teachers’ strengths, and as individualize to students’ needs as it can be. While trying to corral curriculum into state or national standards may look good to a politician or administrator, it looks completely different from someone on my side of the desk. I teach to a student, not a standard. It is a human endeavor, not mechanical. Jane isn't just taking Physics, she is taking Like’s Physics. There is no best way to teach, there is no silver bullet for learning, no utopia that we can achieve that will reach all students. At no point in our future will we “figure education out” so that it works like a well oiled machine and never has  to be looked at again. What we have are good people running against the wind in an uphill job.

So what could this look like? We hear a lot about how we are failing our students nationally and how things need to change. Rarely does anyone tell us how to do this. Today is the day, friends. As I have a captive audience (#youreadthisfar), I will give you some of my ideas. Again, these are my thoughts on a Wednesday afternoon, and may change by Monday.

1) Don’t be afraid of a good argument with students. Often times we shy away from these kinds of things as they can get heated or tiresome. I find that these situations can lead to my most memorable lessons. Remember though, that there are different ways to argue. The classic argument involves a war model: you yell out your side to the high hills until you either win or concede. But there are other ways to argue. Why does there have to be a winner to an argument? In math and science we argue differently; we argue for proof.  For example, I have been altering many of my labs in physics towards what we call a “modelling” approach. Last Monday, my students took data on variables that affect the period of a pendulum (#classiclab #stilladisaster). Before we drew conclusions, I made them whiteboard their results and share their theories with the class. At this time, I basically argued with them over their data. How reliable was it? Are you sure you can back that claim up with evidence? I don’t care what you feel about what should happen, what does your data say? I am not being belligerent, I am being a scientist. At this point in the semester, it brings me the greatest joy when they start to hold each other accountable and argue amongst themselves.

2) Don’t be afraid of alternative points of view. When talking about evolution, how can you leave out intelligent design or catastrophism? Why broom these under a rug? Why don’t we look at data and let the students draw their own conclusion. If 99% of scientists have reached the same decision, shouldn't your students reach it as well judging the data? It baffles me how you language arts teachers deal with poetry, or art teachers with interpreting Picasso? Sometimes there is no right answer.  I think there is a lesson to learn for us teachers as well. A very bright young teacher I know brought up over lunch one day (#bestplaceforPD) that things like blogs, twitter chats, and FOX News are really creating a dichotomy in our society. If all I watch are the same news shows, or read the same blogs (present blog excepted), I am only reinforcing my beliefs, not challenging them. Try posting a diverging comment to a blog or chat. They will crucify you! The people who read these blog are usually of a like mind and don’t want to hear views that are not supported by their peers. They have been preaching to the choir for so long, that their beliefs are cemented in their minds as a dogma, instead of a conceived fluid idea. This gets compounded when you realize that search engines and news feeds run algorithms that only show you articles that are similar to what you have already read. Google perpetuates this! Teachers take heed and diversify your PLN. Invite differing opinions and don’t be afraid to share yours. (#I’mnot #soapbox)

3) Ignorant people ask questions. This is good. Push them to ask why things happen, why are you teaching them this, or why is it important. As I said before, I am ignorant about a great many things, but my ignorance breeds a drive to question. It seems that the more you know, the more you don’t know (#Yoda?). PhD’s do research; we pay them a lot of money to find questions that have never been asked before. If you think that doctoral diploma means they have it all figured out, you probably have not worked with too many of them. If our goal as teachers is to impart the knowledge students are going to need to be successful, we are fighting a losing battle. When I went through high school we didn't have the Internet! How could my teachers prepare me for today’s world? We need to train kids on how to question effectively and back up their claims with evidence, even if we disagree with their conclusions.

I am a teacher. Of all the professions that I could have chosen, both then and now, I still believe my place is in front of kids. It may be close to the hardest job in the world; one of the most scrutinized, underpaid, and underappreciated, but it is what I have devoted almost two decades of my life too.  I know a lot of teachers and I can tell you that I have never met a single one that did not give it his/her all, in school and out, for his/her students. I have the utmost appreciation and respect for everything that you do, from the papers you publish in journals, to the small comments you leave on the margins of your students’ term paper. Please, if there is anything I can help you with, let me know. Also, if there is anything above that sparks your interest, please leave a comment below. Feel free to agree with me, but especially feel free to challenge me. 

Chris

@christopherlike

Next Gen Science Standards, a Need Unfilled

I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Steven Pruitt speak at Iowa's kick off of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) this spring. Now, those of you who know me, or have read any of my earlier posts, should know that I am both the theorist (the talker) and the engineer (the doer). I seek out innovative approaches to teaching by lurching blogs and twitter like a squirrel in a bush hunting nuts. But like the squirrel, I am finicky. I won't eat anything. I also don't like to be force fed. Right now I am trying to decide if these standards, were tossed before me by Cinderella, or laced in poison.

Enough with the rodent analogies.

I am by no means an expert in these standards, but from my cursory study of them, along with my visit with Dr. Pruitt, I have come up with some opinions. 

1. Dr. Pruitt surprisingly makes a lot of sense! He stood before us for eight hours on a cold Iowa spring day giving more than 200 educators an overview of the history and purpose of the standards. He spoke of the need for commonality, the research background underlying then standards, and the intricate politics (or lack of) that went into the decisions made in their development. All in all, he made very good arguments, had research and reality to back up his claims, and was not afraid to tell us the shortcomings involved with their development. I left there trusting that the guy knew what he was talking about.

2. Dr. Pruitt made a lot of sense to 200 educators. I can tell you that, even with my BS glasses on, I came out of that day sipping the Kool Aide. If his goal was to get Iowa's educators excited about the standards, mission accomplished... if Iowa only had 200 educators. My biggest worry on the long drive back to Bettendorf, was how I was going to spread my enthusiasm for what was coming down the pipe. When I got home, I quickly realized that this was going to take some time.

3. Science is not Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Earth/Space science. This was the brightest epiphany for me since that day. It was not Dr. Pruitt, but a particle physicist I know from Coe College that happened to be at the kick off that drew me to this realization. I had worked with Dr. Ugur Ukgun for several years, where he has led me though the intricacies of quantum theory and experimentation. That day, however, he wore a teacher hat. He had been engrossed in laboratory work at the University of Iowa for over a decade while getting his doctorate. Now he was looking for the brightest minds for his own labs. It hit me that this is the guy I am preparing my students for! I needed to pay attention. He said two things that strung a chord with me. He talked about scientific research as being non-denominational. He didn't consider himself a particle physicist, or even a physicist. He was a scientist. In his work, he needed very high level chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, and three other scientific disciplines I had never heard of. Science was not a set of classes, but a way of thinking about nature that is cross-discipline at its very nature.

4. Math is a language, science is a method. The other point that Dr. Ukgun made was that if a student was weak in science, he could work with them. If a student was not proficient in the language of math, he couldn't even talk to the student. Math is the language of science. He believed that if high schools focused more on math (and with that computer programming) they could pick up the science concepts later. This was rather humbling to me as I have devoted many hours to teaching kids science, but his point had some validity.

5. Performance expectations are not the same as standards. They don't just tell us what students should learn, they dictate what students should be able to do. They have the odd feel of Hogwart's potion making class. I am working on my contempt glare ala Professor Snape when a student's potion blows up in their face. I am joking of course, but there is an element of performance assessment that is inherent in them. My problem with performance assessment is that I am not ever sure how to ride the line between pass/fail and giving students too many points for "trying". I guess I will have to look into this. When I figure something out, look for a post:)

6. Lastly is the "Need Unfulilled" aspect of this post. Dr. Pruitt made it exceptionally clear that these performance expectations are not curriculum. They are not intended to be "how to teach", just end results. This is where the teacher comes in. I applaud his committee for giving us reign here to play to our strengths and devise what we feel effectively matches our strengths and individual student's learning styles. However, the amount of work needed to make this change is daunting.

Thus I call to you all again. I am going to be fighting through this for the next few years. So are many of you. Join me in the conversation about how this these standards are interpreted into daily work. I am "phoning a friend" so to say so that we can talk this over, hash it out, and do it the right way. I believe this has to come from teachers, not politicians. We need to take the initiative, something we didn't do with No Child Left Behind. The biggest problem with that legislature is that politicians thought it up and ruined it. Lets have this come from us. We have the guidelines, we just devise the game.

Chris
@christopherlike

Wrapping up gamification in Astronomy

Many of you have been following the implementation of Galaxy Fleet in my astronomy class. This experiment was conceived after the development of Mission Possible, it professional development model for technology PD. The process of applying gamification to my classroom had very distinct differences to applying it to our staff.

Most notibly, I was alone. In developing Mission Possible, I was fortunate in that I was surrounded with people who were excited about the idea. Leanne Wanger, our teacher-librarian was instrumental in the implementation of Mission Possible, and my principal Matt Degner's trust and leadership was essential. With Galaxy Fleet, I was alone in the development of the structure, the activities, the exams, and the back-end bookkeeping. 

Student Reaction:
In keeping updates on this blog, I was focused on the student reaction the process as we went along. I made adjustments on the fly if things were not going well, always kept upbeat about advancement through levels, and made Bead Ceremonies as public and special for everyone. It was nice to start a day by saying "Please join me in congratulating Joe Smith on earning his silver Ensign Rank!" The kid would come forward, be presented with the bauble, and shake my hand. The class liked the individual recognition of their peers.

Today I looked over the end survey for the class.

The comments spoke a very similar story. When asked if they enjoyed the gamifiaction model or they think I should throw it out, a vast majority said they would like to see it stay. Most of the comments revolved around it being fun, a great way to motivate students, and helped them learn the material. Many of them liked the testing procedure where they took several smaller tests instead of one large chapter exam. Even if I decide to not do Galaxy Fleet, I am going to give serious thought to keeping aspects of the testing procedure.

Some students mentioned how competition was a great motivator for them, and that this transition was easy because many of them play video games based on the same principles. They enjoyed trying to reach a level and gaining the recognition as they went.

That is not to say that every student bought into the idea. As you can see from the above graph, four of them were not interested in the game at all. In the comments, one wrote that if he/she wanted to be enlisted in ranking exercises, they would join the army, not take an astronomy class. One mentioned that there was a lot of things to remember in the labs, exams, and homework that was assigned. They had a hard time remembering to do all of it. They also felt frustrated in not reaching levels, wanting to drop the class because they felt they couldn't get anything right. These kind of comments concern me, and can not be fluffed off as outliers in the average.

Grade-wise, the students probably did better under this system, however, it is hard for me to attribute that to the game, or the fact that I took several more days to teach the material. I would say that the game motivated several kids in a way that I didn't have to personally keep them on task. However, if I took the same amount of time in my traditional learning cycle structure, I may have had similar results.

Overall, I am at the point in the process where I look at next year. Do I do this again? What changes would I make? I believe I have learned a lot about what motivates kids, how to tap into their competitive nature, and keep them focused. I am going to definitely keep some aspects of the game, if not the entire system.

I will keep you all updated.

chris
@christopherlike

Classroom Gamification Update

I realize that it has been a while since I have posted an update on the Galaxy Fleet game I am running in my class. I have few excuses except to say that keeping up with the game is very time consuming. Choosing to do this from scratch, with little back end support in place has proven to eat time quicker than a Sarlacc eats a bounty hunter. 

I have found that in order for the game to run smoothly, the students need to feel success periodically. This means that I need to be up to date on grading and awarding of points. The thing would not work if they did a lab activity and it took me three days to grade it, this forcing them to wait that time for their commendations, and therefore slow down the frequency of bar exams. I have to keep things graded everyday. Who knew this game would force me to be a better teacher! 

So where are we now? Of the 25 students in the class three of them have not reached Ensign status. That means that most of the class has passed the cadet bar exams with no less than a 70%. Granted, they could retake exams, but in my normal tests, there was no way 22/25 would have gotten a C or better. 

Of those who reached Ensign status, I have about half who have silver (extra work) status and one that got gold. This one girl who made gold passed all three of the exams on her first attempt and did the extension activity. I can tell already that there are a lot of Ensigns who want a gold bead when they hit their commander status. Since they can all get a gold bead, they truly are not competing against each other, only against themselves. They see her with her shiny gold bead and want that recognition. The game is putting wind in the higher achieving student's sails. 

What about the lower three who have not gotten there? I had a serious talk with them yesterday about their grades and the importance of putting in effort in class. Their stalled movement through the game has given me an avenue to breach the topic of not handing in work. Before this system, I found myself waiting until the summative exam before finding out they were not going to turn work in. Then they coming in after the fact to finish their labs. They failed exams because they didn't do the labs, then did the labs late for credit, turning them into busywork instead of their intended purpose. The game system forces those activities to be in before the exams which keeps them as a learning tool instead of empty points. 

After going through about half of the game, I am still on the fence as to whether it is a good idea or not. I truly believe the students enjoy the game and are more engaged. It is hard to tell if they are retaining the material as they are able to retake the exams, which they were not able to do before. A post-game survey of the class will probably reveal a lot. 

I will try to keep you updated better than I have. 

Chris

@christopherlike

Gamification day 5 recap

I was in Johnston yesterday to kick off the next generation science standards for the state of Iowa. I will probably post on my thought on this sometime soon.

For now, lets fill you in on how my gamification class has been going.

Galaxy Fleet has now graduated three quarters of its cadet class to the title of ensign. Several of the students have received silver beads and one very bright sophomore has gotten gold. We have held two ceremonies at the beginning of class where cadets come forward to receive their beads. I can tell you that those that come up are proud of their accomplishments. A simple handshake and having the class clap for them has really focused them on completing the tasks.

I informed them that they would not receive the points for exams if they do not pass them. I also informed them that they would not be able to even take higher exams until they pass e previous ones. This has spurred them on to retake the exams.

Allowing the to retake the exams has driven them towards passing them. They study for that second time, and really get upset when they fail. These are the same students that have struggled on every previous exam but never cared to even look at them again after the test was over. Now they know that the material is important because they will not move on without showing proficiency. My goal is to have the all pass to ensign by tomorrow. I think They can do it if I nudge them a bit more.

We shall see. Ensign exams start on Monday so they had better be ready.

I will keep you posted,

Chris
@christopherlike