We are at approximately the midterm point in school, and I feel I have used the STC (Science and Technology for Children) system enough now I can make some informed and relevant comments about it. Some of our students have more experience with it than others, due to class time being used for completion of science fair projects, and the science fair itself. My first point would be that as with any new curriculum or system there is a period of adjustment, both on the part of the teachers as well as the students. I could sense right away it will be so much more effective in subsequent years of use, for two main reasons; familiarity on the part of the teachers, and also because students have used different STC units in previous years. There is an emphasis on evaluation in smaller, but more frequent, increments. It will be interesting to see the overall standardized test scores over a period of five to ten years if the school continues to utilize it. There has been some of the (unfortunately) expected negativity from teachers who are "too busy teaching the three R's", especially in the lower grades. In my opinion it is a lack of motivation, and even a certain degree of squeamishness about working with live specimens, for instance, that this springs from. I am trying to help them get past that. This system is supposed to be based on the Learning Cycle, and in some units this is obvious, and in other units not so much. Overall I feel our students are embracing this method of learning science, and I even have reports of third graders clamoring for more science, and verbalizing how much they look forward to science time now.
Bibliographic Note:
http://www.carolina.com/carolina_curriculum/stc/index.asp
Thursday, October 26, 2006
KIPP Schools
A parent mentioned the KIPP Schools yesterday in the context of a conversation about emphasizing hands-on learning and the Learning Cycle. I was not familiar with them, but I intend to use my blog as a pretext for discovering what they are all about and how it may apply to my research and studies at OU.
Bibliographic Note:
http://www.kipp.org/
Bibliographic Note:
http://www.kipp.org/
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Chess and the Learning Cycle
In continuing my line of thought from the previous post, I would like to explore how or if chess can be used to promote academic performance in general, and in science in particular. I never played until a few times as an undergrad at NSU. When I went to El Paso to teach at the high school level in 1988 I inherited the sponsorship of my new school's chess club by default. I quickly grew to see what appeared to be a strong connection between academic success and playing chess. I have since researched this idea and found a strong body of work suggesting a link between chess and grades, cognition, problem solving ability, self-esteem, and even long-term economic benefits! I will post some of these articles as I progress through my blog. At Maryetta, a K-8 school in rural NE Oklahoma, I approached my administration armed with such studies, and they have supported the introduction of a chess elective, club, and team. A Maryetta K-6 team even finished third in the state the first year they competed at that level. I also intend to try to tie chess tactics, strategy, and problems into the mode of the Learning Cycle, if possible.
Bibliographic Note:
http://www.okschess.org/
http://www.uschess.org/scholastic/
Bibliographic Note:
http://www.okschess.org/
http://www.uschess.org/scholastic/
How can we generate enthusiasm and interest in academics, and in particular science?
Following up on previous posts, I hope to explore ways to create, transfer, and maintain the excitement and interest we have in scholastic sports and parlay that into the same for academics, and in particular science and math. The first step, in my opinion, is to remove competitive athletics from the school day entirely. They should be in the after-school and weekend club format, like they use in Europe, for instance. This allows more actual class time for core subjects and electives. I remember in fifth grade at Cherokee Elementary in Tahlequah, Mr. Gary Kimball heightened our enthusiasm for arithmetic by having competitive "races" involving problem solving on the chalkboard, with prizes going to winners. Of course more emphasis on science fairs and symposia, quiz bowls, academic teams, writing contests, speech and debate and so on could incorporate our competitive nature into learning science and math as well. Another possibility would be what I call "science expositions" wherein students individually or in small groups demonstrate a concept from life or physical science in a booth. Parents, other students, and community members are invited to see and hear the students explain and demonstrate a relevant and interesting scientific topic. This could evolve from Learning Cycle based lessons in that the students would have developed their understanding of said topic through experience. Prizes could be awarded, and other schools could be invited to participate and compete as well. This idea also falls from the old axiom that I found to be true from personal experience, and that is you don't really understand something yourself until you teach it to someone else. I will research and post some related references on these ideas as well.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Why do we emphasize and value athletics over academics?
This post is in response to Ike's comments concerning the "Fewer Teachers, More Coaches?" post earlier in the blog. I recalled some earlier readings I had done, and I wanted to take the opportunity to look up, cite, and discuss some more recent and hopefully more scholarly articles, essays, and books on the idea that we place so much emphasis on sports as "ritualized warfare" because it is ingrained in us culturally, psychologically, and even genetically.
Bibliographic Note:
Carl Sagan, Billions & Billions, Thoughts on Life and Death and the Brink of the Millennium, (New York, Random House, 1997). The late astronomer Carl Sagan provided readers with insights into the connection between hunting, athletic games and a sensibility of the spiritual world. Others have noted this nexus as well, including psychologist William James. Quoted by Sagan, James noted: “The hunting and the fighting instinct combine in many manifestations... It is just because human bloodthirstiness is such a primitive part of us that is so hard to eradicate, especially where a fight or a hunt is promised as part of the fun.” 1 Sagan presents us with the thesis that modern day competitive sports “are symbolic conflicts, thinly disguised” and may be the contemporary successors to earlier hunting rituals. By ancient standards, even the antics of the WWF (if you believe them to be real, and not scripted) or the most valiantly contested Super Bowl pale when compared to the brutality of ancient games. In Meso America, for instance, the Mayans and the Aztecs often used a “ball game” to resolve political differences with other tribal groups. The stakes were high; the loosing team was often killed or enslaved. Today’s $5 million signing bonuses, while extravagant, represent a degree of human progress. Indeed, a loss on the game field was sometimes considered as significant as a military defeat. Gods were worshipped and appeased so that the hunt, the game, the outcome of battle would all be successful. Our modern teams are not that different in other ways, either, from their earlier counterparts. We have the Chicago Bears and the Detroit Tigers; the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert of Botswana had jackals, wildcats and scorpions as their “totems.” They also had “owners,” which today is reserved only for management, not players, and other names which cities or schools may have trouble rooting for. Sagan lists totems like Lice, Bitter Melons, Penises, Short Feet, Big Talkers (perhaps apropos for a Washington, D.C. franchise?) and Diarrheas. From a historical standpoint, though, the evidence is compelling; our modern day athletic contests are rooted, in part, in ancient rituals and symbols having to do with hunting, the natural world, and the propitiation of supernatural forces. http://www.americanatheist.org/columns/ontar9-8-99.html
Bibliographic Note:
Carl Sagan, Billions & Billions, Thoughts on Life and Death and the Brink of the Millennium, (New York, Random House, 1997). The late astronomer Carl Sagan provided readers with insights into the connection between hunting, athletic games and a sensibility of the spiritual world. Others have noted this nexus as well, including psychologist William James. Quoted by Sagan, James noted: “The hunting and the fighting instinct combine in many manifestations... It is just because human bloodthirstiness is such a primitive part of us that is so hard to eradicate, especially where a fight or a hunt is promised as part of the fun.” 1 Sagan presents us with the thesis that modern day competitive sports “are symbolic conflicts, thinly disguised” and may be the contemporary successors to earlier hunting rituals. By ancient standards, even the antics of the WWF (if you believe them to be real, and not scripted) or the most valiantly contested Super Bowl pale when compared to the brutality of ancient games. In Meso America, for instance, the Mayans and the Aztecs often used a “ball game” to resolve political differences with other tribal groups. The stakes were high; the loosing team was often killed or enslaved. Today’s $5 million signing bonuses, while extravagant, represent a degree of human progress. Indeed, a loss on the game field was sometimes considered as significant as a military defeat. Gods were worshipped and appeased so that the hunt, the game, the outcome of battle would all be successful. Our modern teams are not that different in other ways, either, from their earlier counterparts. We have the Chicago Bears and the Detroit Tigers; the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert of Botswana had jackals, wildcats and scorpions as their “totems.” They also had “owners,” which today is reserved only for management, not players, and other names which cities or schools may have trouble rooting for. Sagan lists totems like Lice, Bitter Melons, Penises, Short Feet, Big Talkers (perhaps apropos for a Washington, D.C. franchise?) and Diarrheas. From a historical standpoint, though, the evidence is compelling; our modern day athletic contests are rooted, in part, in ancient rituals and symbols having to do with hunting, the natural world, and the propitiation of supernatural forces. http://www.americanatheist.org/columns/ontar9-8-99.html
Don't Think of an Elephant!
I ordered this book per Dr. Pedersen's recommendation and have already almost finished reading it. Let me begin by saying that the first presidential election I was able to vote in, I was suckered in by Ronald Reagan. I subsequently realized the error of my ways and registered Libertarian, and wasted votes through the 90s on their candidates. In the new century I have vacillated between Democratic and Independent candidates in most elections. The concept of framing can be very useful as put forth by Lakoff, and the cognitive aspects are illuminating and applicable in education and many other fields. I began to realize as I read through the book that something similar was happening to what happened to me many times this summer while blogging my history of science course. That is, concepts and ideas that I was intuitively aware of, or at least in agreement with, were being given names, placed in context, and "framed" if you will. I realize I have a lot to learn about my profession and life in general (as we all do!) but I am beginning to wonder if this is common among graduate students, and in particular those in a PhD program. Is the emphasis less on learning "new" things, and more on organizing, focusing, and again "framing" a lot of what we already know, and consequently then being able to use and aplly it/them more effectively? I think much of these thoughts are coming about for me because I do have almost twenty years of classroom experience.
Bibliographic Note:
George Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives, (Vermont, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004). Don't Think of an Elephant! is the definitive handbook for understanding what happened in the 2004 election and communicating effectively about key issues facing America today. Author George Lakoff has become a key advisor to the Democratic party, helping them develop their message and frame the political debate.
In this book Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.
Lakoff's years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests.
Don't Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing's stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.
Read it, take action-and help take America back.
Bibliographic Note:
George Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives, (Vermont, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004). Don't Think of an Elephant! is the definitive handbook for understanding what happened in the 2004 election and communicating effectively about key issues facing America today. Author George Lakoff has become a key advisor to the Democratic party, helping them develop their message and frame the political debate.
In this book Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.
Lakoff's years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests.
Don't Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing's stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.
Read it, take action-and help take America back.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
NSTA Reports
In the interest of reading and discussing a wide variety of sources relating to my areas of interest, I intend to include some interesting and relevant articles from this newspaper. I have been a member of NSTA since 1995. This month there are articles about alternative certification, NCLB, a review of a book called Science for English Language Learners by the NSTA Press, picturing to learn, and a discussion concerning Pluto in the classroom.
Bibliographic Note:
NSTA Reports: Monthly Newsletter of the National Science Teachers Association, October 2006, Volume 18 Number 2
Bibliographic Note:
NSTA Reports: Monthly Newsletter of the National Science Teachers Association, October 2006, Volume 18 Number 2
Monday, October 02, 2006
Science For All...
This article from Educational Researcher focuses on equitable science education for students from non-English-language backgrounds (NELB) but the approaches outlined here can probably be applied to other diverse groups and subject areas. The authors propose the notion of "instructional congruence" as a way of making academic content accessible, meaningful, and relevant for diverse learners.
Bibliographic Note:
Okhee Lee and Sandra Fradd, "Science for All, Including Students From Non-English-Language Backgrounds", Educational Researcher, Vol. 27, No.4, pp12-21.
Bibliographic Note:
Okhee Lee and Sandra Fradd, "Science for All, Including Students From Non-English-Language Backgrounds", Educational Researcher, Vol. 27, No.4, pp12-21.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)