Good Stuff

What does “stuff” — physical objects — contribute to the science classroom?  I think a lot, but there’s certainly another point of view.  To be quite argumentative about it, my prejudice is that if your primary concern is that students get excited about the world and ways of learning  more about it, then you like having stuff around.  If you are primarily focused on outcome measures and “student achievement,” you worry about students being distracted from officially approved learning goals.

My dad was a junior high science teacher, and though I never had a class with him, I spent a lot of after-school time in his room, while he cleaned up, shuffled papers, and did the other things a teacher needs to do before heading home. There were terrariums, samples of rocks and  minerals (mostly gathered by us on weekend excursions), skulls, birds’ nests, beach-combing trophies, balance scales, geometric solids, field guides. maps, star charts —a microcosm world-jumble. Always something to see, handle, watch, tweak.

Maybe it’s because of this early exposure that I have always felt that a healthy science classroom needs to be full of stuff — some of it to some obvious curricular purpose for this week’s focus, some of it present as a result of past moments of curiosity or narrative.  In moments of distraction or rumination, natural objects, machinery, instruments can raise questions, invite an idle probe or an object lesson, which suddenly clicks into a real interest, or adds to the “mulch” of acquaintance with the world that nourishes the inquiring mind (“mulch” a favorite word of John King, experimental physicist and educational experimenter at MIT, and longtime TERC ally).  As James Lovelock said, of connecting with natural places and objects, “Well, I think if you can, you feel part of the world, you feel much more interested in it, and your sense of wonder is stimulated.”  (in Wolpert & Richards, Passionate minds.)

I have been influenced in my own work by  David Hawkins’s essay “I, Thou, and It”. In this piece, Hawkins proposes that in the science classroom, the learning situation includes teacher (he speaks from this point of view, as “I”), the student (“Thou”), and It = the subject matter, the phenomenon which serves also as a boundary object, upon which the I and Thou each have their own perspective — so they have something to talk about, look at, make sense of together,  which is not “mine,” or “thine,” but is a common puzzle — the world itself (in part).

My attitude is not related to any particular pedagogical technique, such as project-based learning.  Rather, I simply believe that there are many reasons, some of them intellectual, some affective, and some ethical/moral, to ensure that learners have a lot of experience with physical objects — actual physical objects, not 2-D or even 3-D representations— and that some of this experience should NOT be driven by curricular imperatives.  I could cite Dewey or other educators before and since, but the testimony of scientists about the origins of their engagement speaks very clearly on this point.  (A good place to start reading about this nexus might be Sherry Turkle’s book Falling for Science:Objects in mind.)

It’s been hard to find research on this general topic.  There are definitely good practical resources, many of them based in the “informal ed” or museum literature (not surprising!), such as Teaching with objects and photographs  by Ellen Sieber and Sarah Hatcher — which argues for the importance of realia in stimulating curiosity, in providing opportunties for small-group collaboration, improving conceptual learning and sensory literacy.   More theoretical in tone,  there’s lots of work on “embodied cognition,” which might feel relevant (see for example this useful if slightly grouchy review article by Margaret Wilson, who seems never to have done any hunting or gathering).   There is recent research that shows that sensori-motor systems of students with relevant practical experience are activated in new learning situations, to improve their learning about physical phenomena in physics lab.

None of these are about “stuff”, however.  With the continuing emphasis on achievement and competitive advantages, we may not see research about this topic for a while.  More likely, we will see more research based on the desire to enforce attention to tasks, which takes a dim view of distraction.

In commenting on a previous post (on Money), Talbot Bielefeld wrote:

Regarding the value of all the “stuff” in classrooms, there is research out of Carnegie Mellon suggesting that visually crowded classroom environments may actually interfere with learning. See Fisher, Godwin, & Seltman, 2014 (http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/710-Fisher-2014.pdf)

While this study focuses on young kids, for whom acculturation to desk work and learning on schedule is a major challenge, I have seen it quoted in many other contexts.  A good enough result in itself, it is also serviceable to certain views and aims of education policy, so I expect it to serve as the vanguard of many similar studies, and quickly to be incorporated into policy guidelines about classroom environments.

For myself, I close with a comment from that old psychologist, Walt Whitman:

There was a child went forth every day;
And the first object he look’d upon, that object he became;
And that object became part of his for the day, or a certain part of the day, or for many years, or stretching cycles of years…

(The full poem is here among many other places).

What is your experience of stuff in the STEM classroom?

Note: The opinions in this blog are solely the author’s, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Guest post by Christine Cunningham — Fostering Engineering Affinity and Identity, 3 views from the 2016 Videohall

We are pleased to have a guest post by Christine Cunningham, from the Museum of Science, Boston.  Christine Cunningham is an educational researcher who works to make engineering and science more relevant and accessible, especially for underserved and underrepresented populations. A vice president at the Museum of Science, Boston, she is the founding director of Engineering is Elementary.

“Hidden Figures” recently became the highest-grossing movie nominated for Best Picture in 2017. One of the impacts of the remarkable film is that it is inspiring kids, particularly girls and children of color, to imagine a possible future for themselves that could include mathematics, computer science, or space science or engineering. It also models pushing against societal norms.

Big budget movies are one tool for sending such messages. But other ongoing projects can also be effective at helping students, particularly those from groups that traditionally have been underrepresented in engineering, develop accurate understandings of engineering and consider it as a career path. Let’s consider how three NSF-funded projects that presented to the 2016 STEM Videohall are breaking down stereotypes as they create resources and experiences that help students build affinity and with engineering.

1. SciGirls Profiles: Women in STEM

SciGirls Profiles: Women in STEM is one tool developed by the SciGirls Strategy project. The larger project aims to help educators recruit and retain high school girls from diverse backgrounds into STEM pathways. To help them do this, they provide access to role models. Adult engineers engage with students face-to-face but their stories are also shared more widely through short-form videos. One of these, featured as their 2016 NSF Showcase Video, profiles an impressive software engineer—Caroline. Her story highlights a number of elements that resonate with young women. For example, software engineers can be engaging, articulate, and well rounded. Caroline earned her undergraduate degree English and American Studies. In a clever association, the video highlights Caroline’s facility with two types of languages. She speaks three languages—English, Swahili, and Kikuyu—as well as the six computer science programming languages she has learned.

Caroline’s path to coding has not been through a traditional computer science major. Instead, she describes how her curiosity and desire to make a website for an English project led her to teach herself to code, by using online tools. Caroline connects her work to problem solving and helping people. She articulates that she considers technology “empty” if you do not think about how humans experience it. In the video, Caroline celebrates teamwork, community, and networks as critical to her work. She describes the “huge community of engineers and developers that are willing to help each other learn the latest and greatest in coding.” And she evokes her network of mentors as a community she taps for support when she faces the challenge of what people expect women can and can’t do.

2. #ilooklikeanengineer

The #ilooklikeanengineer video echoes many of the same themes. Part of Iron Range Engineering, this project aims to help high school and college women learn more about what “it actually means to be an engineer.” The women featured in 2016 STEM Showcase Video explicitly call out some of the stereotypes of engineers—they are exceeding smart, good at one thing, sit in a corner, get all As, and are introverted. The idea that there is only one type of person who is good at engineering is a barrier that the project seeks to break down. They do so in part with role models. During an overnight experience, young women have the opportunity to meet and interact with working engineers from the community. Hearing stories from practicing engineering can help develop more accurate perceptions. It also can highlight the fact that engineers design many different types of technologies (they work with more than mines, automobiles, and computers) and that people take many different paths to becoming an engineer.

The video and program communicate that engineering can be a “helping” career, and is appropriate for “anyone who wants to see the world be a better place.” Research shows that emphasizing that engineers help people, animals, society, and the world can help attract women. Another key message about engineering communicated through the video (and, presumably the programming) is that engineering benefits from a diversity of ideas and people. Students are invited to bring their own unique experiences and told they can strengthen engineering solutions. People who think differently generate original ideas, thus bringing more options for solving problems. Celebrating a diversity of people, perspectives, and ideas is a strategy that can make engineering be much more attractive to groups that might not associate with stereotypical images of engineers and engineering.

In addition to talking with more experienced role models, participants of the overnight program engage in workshops. Trying their hand at an engineering problem can be a powerful tool for encouraging students to think about their potential as problem solvers and engineers. As they design or problem solve, young women can begin to identify with the work, recognize their enjoyment or skill with engineering tasks, and begin to construct an engineering identify.

3. DIMES: Immersing Teachers and Students in Virtual Engineering Internships

It’s active engagement with engineering problems that the third video also uses to develop students’ abilities to see themselves as engineering capable. The DIMES: Immersing Teachers and Students in Virtual Engineering Internships project is creating virtual experiences for middle school students, male and female. As part of their science class, students are called to participate in an online engineering internship. A virtual project director (controlled and customized by the teacher) describes the project and assigns them (the engineering interns) problems and tasks. Students tackle on real-world problems such as drug-resistant malaria. Using digital tools, students conduct research, engage in an iterative design process, and create a proposal for a design solution they communicate to the client. Assuming the role of a problem-solving engineering intern allows students to envision themselves as capable and creative engineers. Student engagement is critical for prompting children to think about themselves and their abilities in new ways—in this case that they can problem-solve and engineer.

 

As we work to educate a next generation of problem solvers, we want to do so in ways that invite, attract, and retain a diverse group of students. These three featured videos all use strategies that research suggests can help students, particularly those traditionally underrepresented in engineering fields, to begin affiliate or identify with engineering. Role models are powerful resources for demonstrating that people “like you” can do it. Debunking traditional stereotypes while providing information about the variety of people, perspectives, and pathways that contribute to innovative ideas can also make engineering seem more welcoming or attractive. Emphasizing that engineers fundamentally help people to solve problems and make the world a better place is a message that resonates with many youth. Finally, there is nothing like actually engaging with engineering practices and problems to build students’ knowledge about and confidence in their engineering abilities and identities.

The views expressed on this blog are those of the writers, and not to be attributed to MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Money

The extensive edublog reflections upon the new Secretary of Education have provided a convenient list of Hot Topics in Ed Policy. One that has not much been in the forefront is simple, and of course related to almost every other policy theme: Money, the staff of life for institutions and sine qua non for most policy priorities — and for conditions on the ground in schools. At every level of government, decisions about whether and how to fund schooling are taken all the time, and there are at least two lines of connection that link the national with the local (and back again). One is the flow of dollars, and the other is the flow of ideas, since it is ideas ( in various guises— hopes, prejudices, philosophies, economy, science, etc. ) that determine where the money-pipelines will flow, which spigots are opened or closed, what the flow-rates are, and where you meter the system.

So it is useful to have to hand a survey of research about a simple topic: Does money matter in education? When we translate this into slightly more concrete terms, nuances appear, as they should: What harm will we do by cutting education budgets? What benefit can be gained by spending more (any?) public money on education?

Long ago, the meme that “you can’t fix education by throwing money at it” was replaced in sober policy discussions by the better meme, “What matters is what you’re spending the money on.” Eric Hanushek and others who share his generallly “economist” view of education use as their most important metric the impact of dollars on “student outcomes,” generall “achievement,”  despite the acknowledged difficulty of Attribution:  being able to say with sufficient certainty how a dollar spent could be linked to individual student test scores.  People with other foci will frame the discussion very differently (see, for example, most any blog in our Blog Roll, or for variety’s sake this article by Dana Goldstein in the Nation — from 2012, but framing our question energetically in terms of classroom resources and the lives of teachers).

Bruce Baker has provided a full-but-compact overview of studies about the impact of money in education, with particular emphasis on evidence of how money is being spent effectively (tip of the hat to Derek Black’s blog post on this report).  Baker’s report, “Does Money Matter in Education?,” includes a brief and useful overview of the “does money matter” debate over recent decades, and then moves on to answer three questions, accepting as the “dependent variable” the “student outcomes” that are the Coin of the Realm in ed policy circles:

Does Money matter?   Baker says, Yes:  “on balance, in direct tests of the relationship between nancial resources and student outcomes, money matters.”  Baker does not avoid the nuances — some studies show more impact than others, there are many mediating variables, you can’t establish a “dose-response” relationship of dollars input to points of student achievement gained, but the trends are clear and persistent.

Do schooling resources that cost money matter?  This is a very valuable re-phrasing of the basic question.  After all, how can we decide what to spend our money on?  The answer again is Yes, but again nuances matter:  “On the whole…the things that cost money benefit students, and there is scarce evidence that there are more cost-effective alternatives.”  Baker mentions some specific “things” postively associated with improved student outcomes:  “smaller class sizes, additional sup- ports, early childhood programs and more competitive teacher compensation.”     Baker notes that some of these (e.g. smaller class sizes) have been shown to be particularly of value to more challenged, lower-performing students — the ones we keep saying we most want to help cross  the “achievement gap,” that persistent chasm.

Do state school finance reforms matter?   Again, Yes. The executive summary is:  “While money alone may not be the answer, more equitable and adequate allocation of nancial inputs to schooling provide a necessary underlying condition for improving the equity and ade- quacy of outcomes.”

For me, the great value of this paper is  precisely that while clear answers are given,  some specific mechanisms behind the answers are provided, and nuances are included or alluded to.  Too often “ideas” in policy debates or funding documents are not accompanied by much in the way of a theory of action, or any hint that other factors may be at work which might affect how or whether the hammer you are wielding actually drives home the nail you’ve chosen to strike.

 

Note:  The opinions in this blog are solely the author’s, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Still unsettled: evolution in the science curriculum

Every year, bills are introduced into state legislatures aimed at decreasing the credibility of science, starting with the theory of evolution. That’s not what they say, of course. It’s been some time since anyone explicitly wanted to mandate that creationism be taught in the schools, instead of (or more usually, along side of) the mainstream scientific view. Years ago, “creation science” became the alternative proposed; this was followed by “intelligent design,” and as that lost viability, the anti-evolution advocates decided to urge us to “teach the controversy.”
This was a clever move, for a couple of reasons. First, it removed the hot-button language into the background a bit — it came across as a simple, common-sense plea for fair-mindedness. Second, over the decades, scientific research and development have brought forward other matters that are problematic to a significant proportion of the same people who oppose evolution education: climate change, cloning and some kinds of genetic research… If you merely advocate for “teaching the controversy,” you don’t even have to specify which controversy people need to hear about.
In the past few years, the language as shifted again — we aren’t urged to “teach the controversy” — after all, for climate change and evolution, the two most important targets, there is no controversy. That is, the basic scientific understanding has been long established, and controversies focus on important but subsidiary issues — elaborating, fine-tuning, deepening the power of the theory to make sense of (some aspect of) the world.  Instead, the rationale became “academic freedom,” and “teaching strengths and weaknesses…”  The Discovery Institute developed model legislation which provides protection, and encouragement  for teachers to teach “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories,”  especially on questions where there is controversy (read: social/political controversy). This legislation has been used as the basis for a successful bill in Louisiana in 2008, and for numerous unsuccessful filings in Iowa, Florida, Maryland, Oklahoma and elsewhere (with variants in my own state, New Hampshire a few years ago).

This year has seen three such bills filed already, in South Dakota, Oklahoma (again), and (with notational variants) Indiana.  (For more information, links to press coverage,and background information, the best source is, of course, the National Center for Science Education.).

As a biologist, I care that evolution is taught, and (more important) understood.  I want people (students and grownups) to understand why evolution works as the answer to some fundamental questions in biology (I have never been a fan of teaching evolution starting with the evidences, taking it for granted sort of like a geometrical theorem to be proved, rather than the result of a grand inquiry to make sense of a very complicated biological world).   Evolutionary biology, and its intimate relative, ecology, are the two areas of biology of most importance to the most people  in the 21st century (IMHO).

But leaving that aside, the debate about evolution in the curriculum is a debate about the social understanding of science, and also a debate about pedagogy.  It makes no sense to ask students to understand the “strengths and weaknesses” of any theory which, however simple its basic premises seem, is established on the basis of an enormous about of work on myriad systems and organisms, with which students are just not familiar.  Even well-educated teachers are not likely to be prepared for such a task, as stated.

But of course no one really expects students or teachers to have specialist knowledge of all the various controversial topics addressed by the legislation that keeps coming forward.  Perhaps the legislators do not themselves realize how big a task it would be to “understand the strengths and weaknesses” of such a theory (or of climate change, or the big bang, or some other “controversy”).

The persistent impulse to legislate against uncomfortable science reflects the inclination to see science as a matter of opinion, in which anyone’s voice carries equal weight (teachers are familiar with policies and political rhetoric that conveys the idea that teaching is so simple that anyone off the street could probably do as well).  There is much to criticize about the over-valuing, or the “cult”  of expertise, Heaven knows;  yet that does not mean that expertise does not exist, nor that its advice within its own sphere should not be taken seriously.  Beyond the loaded question of expertise, however, is the recognition  that science (like other fields of endeavor) represents the fruits — not final! — of an international, centuries-old community of labor, imagination, persistence, critique, and integrity.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bloggers take stock at the end of 2016

As we move into 2017, much of the press and commentary on Current Events talk about unprecedented this, disruptive that, and uncharted t’other. Still, this year is also a continuation of last year, so it is good to think about recent trends and ideas, which one way or the other have prepared the ground for what comes next. One of the purposes of this blog is to scan other people’s blogs, and bring things to your attention which you may not have had time to encounter. So, herewith a couple of such overviews, which will certainly inform my reading and writing this year — please write in suggesting other year-end roundups you have found useful!

  1. Hackeducation: What happened in Ed Tech in 2016 (and who paid for it)Top Ed Tech Trends for 2016. This is my nominee for most wide-ranging analysis of the previous year.  Blogger Audrey Watters each year writes 10 post over the course of December, each exploring an important trend.  For each trend, there is a corresponding, additional blog post in which she provides additional commentary and links to sources, and these are accessible here, from the index page (linked above).  Each “trend” receives  extensive and thoughtful treatment — hours of fun, but also a thorough education about the educational landscape.  (You can also go back to prior years’ “trends” essays as well, and it’s often very useful to do so.)  Don’t be put off by the “technology” part, if that is not a favorite interest of yours.  Watters is alert to educational policy, philosophy, and experience, and pays attention to K-12, higher ed, economics, privacy, and other dimensions of education as it is lived now.This year’s trends:  Education Technology and the year of wishful thinking; The politics of educational technology; The business of educational technology; Education technology and the promise of “free” and “open”; Education technology and the “new” for-profit higher education; Education technology and the  “New Economy”;  Education technology and the history of the future of credentialing;  Education technology and data insecurity; Education technology and the ideology of personalization;  Education technology’s inequalities. 
  2. Larry Ferlazzo’s Best, Worst, and Other Education News  of 2016.  (You get a two-fer here, because the link takes you to the Answer Sheet). Ferlazzo’s blogs are a great resource for education news, and a good complement to Hackeducation — as with all good education bloggers (here’s Peter Greene’s list, which doesn’t include some of my favorites).Ferlazzo’s choice of “best news” (with supporting links)  includes:  the defeat of the Massachusetts charter-cap ballot initiative; 3 successful voter initiatives in California raising money for education including bilingual ed; rising high school graduation rates; positive new trends in student discipline practices; a study showing that teachers in lower-income communities are comparable in quality to those in higher-income communities; court victories for teacher unions, affirmative action, and teacher tenure; the continued spread of ethnic studies courses in schools, and his concluding note:  “Millions of students had great learning experiences in their schools this year.”His “worst” list:  increase stress and a “hate-spike” in recent months; likely increased support for school vouchers; school shootings;  decreasing spending on education; trends in attrition among teachers of color; the continued widespread legality of corporal punishment in public schools; discouraging progress on de-segregation; changes in the GED for the worst. Finally, “Millions of students should have gotten a better education than they did this year.”

    His choice for the most important 2016 ed news that’s neither bad nor good: The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).  He writes:

     The federal government is working with states to try to figure out how to implement The Every Student Succeeds Act.  It seems like it could be an improvement on No Child Left Behind, but it’s still too early to determine if this is going to be bad or good for teachers, students and their families.  There is hope that it will bring positive change to our classrooms.  However, as they say, the devil is in the details — and it is unclear what the upcoming Trump administration will do in regards to enforcing it.

    Lots of good fodder for discussion!  Add your voice this year!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Three angles on sustainability education from the 2016 STEM Videohall

The STEM for All 2016 Video Showcase repays a re-visit. The archive of 156 videos invite reflection on trends, themes, and strategies.  I went there to spend some virtual time with teaching and learning, colleagues and ideas.  After sorting on various themes and categories, I found myself returning to three videos which represent three different strategies for “sustainability education”  — I use the scare quotes because, though useful, the label is to me a faint and colorless pointer to a very rich landscape of ideas, activities, and implications.

The first video I encountered was “Exploring systems thinking in Connected Worlds.”  from the NY Hall of Science (and other partners). The project has designed and installed a supremely interactive and imaginative environment at the Hall, intended to help visitors (especially children) begin to think in terms of systems as they explore, modify, and in part construct fanciful ecosystems which nevertheless obey real ecosystem constraints.  The visitors are invited to observe and interact with  its dreamlike and beautiful organisms and landscapes, and engaged with the challenge of maintaining or establishing “balance” in the systems.  The learning about function & process is thus interwoven with the activity of caring for the systems, first and foremost by seeing what makes for the flourishing or failing of specific organisms, groups, or landscape features — and coming to see how nothing in these systems can be cared for or even understood in isolation.   The video is so charming that it almost makes me want to go to New York City to see the installation.

Stop #2 on my little tour was at the video for “Teaching Environmental Sustainability with Model My Watershed” (TES-MMW), from the Stroud Water Research Center, Concord Consortium, and Azavea, an R&D organization focusing on geospatial data applications.  The project is intended, as the video abstract says, to develop “interdisciplinary, place-based, problem-based, hands-on set of resources, models and tools…to promote geospatial literacy and systems thinking.”  In the context of realistic decisions about resource management and watershed health. students can collect data at sites within their watershed (using probes connected to mobile devices),  and import that data into a rich computational environment which allows them to visualize, analyze the data, and investigate dynamics (including possible management decisions) in a modeling system that makes use of the data they have collected, in the context of other data sets, taking into account landscape features at different scales.

My final Sustainability stop was at “Back to the earth- Y3.” This project, conducted by a partnership of the University of Idaho, and the Spokane and Coeur d’Alene tribes, has multiple STEM learning goals.  The science is set in the context of the indigenous cultures’ identification and interaction with the landscape and the organisms upon it.  Knowledge and understanding of the ecological systems is integrated with song, narrative, and indigenous science knowledge and management methods.  The students see how the Spokane and Coeur d’Alene are themselves participants in the system very directly.  Mobile devices are used in the field and in the classroom, but so are nondigital tools for observation, collection, analysis, aquaculture,  and construction (constructing understanding, but also dwellings, nets, etc.).  Personal investment is an explicit part of the experience — in a clip from a field trip, we hear the leader encourage them to pay attention to their inner response to what they’re encountering:  “It’s important to let that heart piece come through…What parts of the whole ecosystem here are making our hearts sing?”

These three videos make for interesting contrasts along many dimensions.  All the projects aim to increase students’ understanding of STEM ideas, by direct engagement with complex, dynamic systems in which the students have some personal stake. I ended up thinking about these dimensions: Virtual vs actual;  the where of place (fantasy in Connected Worlds, subject-object in TES-MMW, place-of-identity in Back to the earth); the role of technology (highest in Connected Worlds, essential/constructive in TES-MMW, supportive/instrumental in Back to the Earth).

 

“Back to the Earth” engages the children at many levels of personal identity, so that the project activities awaken or connect to the feeling of the landscape as an extension of the self.  This I recognize, growing up in a landscape of Maine forest, field, and tidal water which I can still feel, though I haven’t lived there in 40 years. The visceral feeling of interdependence can be a powerful motivation for inquiry and for conservation.  Maps, hand-lenses, aerial photos, soil tests, and other scientific representations add layers of meaning — and provide the basis for comparison with other landscapes.

TES-MMW uses rich technical tools to build knowledge and insight, and one can imagine that the modeling system is the place where the students get a feeling for what their watershed is, as they can “see” it (both the “natural” and the built elements) at the scale of pH or DO measurements, soil characteristics, or landscape features of boundaries, corridors, edges, and various compositional elements.  Identification can help drive the inquiry, or can grow as a result of the inquiry (“from the outside in,” so to speak).  The technology is an integrated meditational environment, necessary to the learning goals of the project.  The whole watershed is not directly experienced, but sampled (by visits as well as measurements), with the modeling system allowing a fuller representation than the field trips and data-collection could provide.

In contrast to the other two projects, in which the environment is “out there,” and the students go to it, draw from it, etc., Connected Worlds is the environment, the locus of experience, and in that sense the wonderful technology is largely invisible, and not instrumental.  Its imaginative and dynamic elements are deeply rooted in the way we have learned that systems operate, so that the fantasy world is in effective continuity with the “real” world, but simplified enough that it can be learned and learned about fairly quickly.  You can’t “identify” with it, in the sense that you see it as connected to your understanding of self — except in the ways that art can always involve those who experience it.   What are the links that the children see to the landscapes in which they live, day to day?  Do the dynamics and patterns of Connected Worlds enable them to see (experience) their landscape in new ways (I am trying to avoid the dread word “transfer”)?

One final note:  Part of the framing for all of these projects is caring, nurturing agency, supported or enabled by knowledge, reflection, and investigative method. This is “engagement” but not only to motivate learning content.  It seems to me that the fundamental “methods” here, and shared across all these very different experiences, are getting-to-know, and story-building.   These can involve (sometimes must involve) quantitative learning and knowing, but also, and deeply, qualitative understanding.  This makes sense to me:  identity, inquiry, and agency come together for me in two qualitative puzzles:  What sort of a world is this, anyway? and What is to be done?

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Collapsing estates and centers of social value

This is a title well above my pay-grade, but as my last post for 2016, I am indulging myself a bit with a reflection on the location of education (including STEM ed) within our social value system.
Back in my 20s, a baby Indo-Europeanist, I had as advisor the remarkable Calvert Watkins, whose abiding interest was Indo-European (IE) culture and poetics. He made sure that we were aware of the ideas of one of his teachers, the great French scholar Émile Benveniste, and those of Georges Dumézil. Among their themes was the tripartite structure of ancient IE society, in which, they argued, there were three power centers, represented in Vedic society by the brahmin (priestly class), the kshattriya (warrior class), and vaishya (merchants and farmers). (Sorry I can’t get the diacritics right on this keyboard!).
This basic division of power, with some variations, was discernible in many of the descendent societies of IE speakers, and indeed shows up even in medieval Europe under a division of all society into oratores (the ones who pray), bellatores (the ones who fight), and laboratores (the ones who do productive labor). This is reflected even later in the French Ancien Régime, which was seen to consist of 3 “estates of the realm”:  clergy, nobility, and commoners — to which post-revolutionary American and Europe informally added a fourth estate — the press.

Of course, these schemes are idealized models which sweep much of lived reality under the rug.  For example, the shudra is the 4th caste in Vedic theory, whose function is to serve the other 3 castes — it corresponds to what are now called “Dalit,” and we used to call “untouchables”; the landless, disenfranchised serfs of Europe might occupy a similar position in the structure.  Another example of things under the rug is the derivation of the Sanskrit word for “caste,”  varna, from a Vedic term meaning “color, shade”  (though Benveniste, in Le vocabulaire  des institutions indo-europeens, adduces evidence from Avestan that this color scheme derives from the characteristic colors of clothing worn by different groups, rather than from skin-color).

The reason I am bringing this ancient history into this blog, however, is that the distinction, however idealized, did convey that the three different power centers represented three different value centers (not without some overlap, and the king in many societies was a bridge among them).  The “warrior” class exerted its power most fundamentally by force of arms, but also less physically by surrounding codes of ethics/honor and responsibility; they derived their wealth from land-holdings.  The “productives” exerted power economically, by means of the trades, agriculture, and trade, and they developed explicit organs of power represented by guilds and similar associations.  The “priests” included in ancient times many people whose role was the preservation and propagation of cultural knowledge — bards, story tellers, seers,  artists, healers, etc. , as well as those who had the care of ritual relations with the spiritual world.

Many and many’s the time that people from these three estates colluded to share wealth and power, and worked to provide mutual support and stability — or through corruption to use the pretensions of one kind of power to dominate the others.  Yet I would argue that, even when the distinction  between these value systems was a mere vestige and sham, it allowed room for the operation of conscience and for reflection on contrasting values and commitments — and this was so even when the “theory” of estates was implicit, hidden within “the way it’s s’posed to be.”

The term “fourth estate” ascribed to journalism yet a separate stance, to inform and critique from a point of view independent of any of the other “estates.”  The press has been proud of this role, over the years;  though of course there are many ways it can in fact be largely complicit with one or another Power, even while continuing to arrogate the dignity of independence to itself.  This always weakens a democracy.

Education has always tended to be in the service of one or another of these power-centers, and in each it has had one or more specific, characteristic forms — often recreated as societies have risen and fallen, because of the requirements of the tasks and the kinds of inquiry that are appropriate to different walks of life or lines of endeavor. Yet in this country (and some others), the commitment to realize a new ideal of democracy in the form of a democratic republic has added in additional questions and concerns, which have sometimes shaken up the “estate focused” education, building bridges, opening boundaries, and challenging or refreshing values, responding to the demands of an energetic, multi-ethnic, expansive society.  While different interest groups have asserted their educational agendas vigorously, other voices have pushed back, in a dynamic and often creative mixture (or mess).

In the past few years, however, economic language and values have more and more become the common language in all sectors.  This has been noticed and studied by economists (for example Robert Nelson) , by journalists (e.g. Thomas Frank), by philosophers (like Michael Sandel), and by theologians (e.g. Harvey Cox). And of course by bloggers (like Emily Talmage and many others). The result among other things has been a general assumption of education as primarily an engine of the economy — appropriate for a social system for whom the “average Joe or Jane”  (Quetelet’s homme moyen) has been replaced by the economic modeler’s homo economicus, the human as economic unit (either consumer or factor of production).

A recent essay in Inside Higher Education brought this forcibly and lucidly to mind, as it discussed the direction that the author believes that higher education is moving, and should move (both to serve the “new economy” and ensure its own survival).  The essay explored the idea of the “Minimum Viable Product” as it applies to education. Ryan Craig, the author, writes

A minimum viable product — or MVP — is the simplest, smallest product that provides enough value for consumers to adopt and actually pay for it. It also is the minimal product that allows producers to receive valuable feedback, iterate and improve.

A bachelor’s degree is not designed to be such a product, Craig writes — it’s too big, too expensive, too vague, and not targeted enough.  “The vast majority of colleges and universities continue to believe they’re not in the business of preparing students for their first job.”   If they finally get with the program, they will understand that

the most important development in higher education in the next decade will be a College MVP.

Craig suggests that in order to address this challenge, post-secondary education will need to think in smaller units than a degree, and take a lesson from a trending practice in Silicon Valley and other exemplars of the New Economy:

Some of the lean start-ups proliferating in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are boot camps, providing “last-mile” training to unemployed, underemployed and unhappily employed young people and — critically — placing them in good jobs in growing sectors of the economy, like technology and health care. This largely technical training is increasingly referred to as last mile not only because it leads directly to employment, but reflecting the last mile in telecom, where the final telephonic or cable connection from trunk to home is the most difficult and costly to install, and also the most valuable.

He suggests that college MVPs will

 emerge from a paradigm shift from how we currently think about college — much more than simply cost and length.

The before and after paradigms are charted thus:

TRADITIONAL COLLEGE

COLLEGE MVP

Faculty-centric

Employer-centric

Learning outcomes

Competencies/skills

Curriculum

Assessments

Assignments

Work product

Liberal arts

Critical thinking

Electives

Prescribed pathway

Now, I believe that learning is growth, and that education is to encourage growth in individuals in social context.  The goal can be encapsulated by the term “flourishing”:  Education is to increase an individual’s capacity to flourish, bearing in mind intellectual, emotional, social, and moral dimensions — knowing that if one of these is in the foreground, the others are also always present.  The “traditional” column, it seems to me, resonates, however dimly, with this general understanding.

The second column, by contrast, resonates for me with the term “success”, which is rather different in its connotations from flourishing (you could say that success can be one component of flourishing).  The language here of course is aimed at IHEs.  It resonates, however,  with the “college and career ready” language aimed more at K-12 education;  with many of the arguments for “school choice”:  and with the technology-focused “personalization” and “micro-credentialing” fads, among many other strands in recent “reform” language. The general view  is of education as part of the consumer economy, as one product in the market place, competing with other products.

Far be it from me to oversimplify the motives of advocates for productized education, and for education whose pinnacle target is “success” as opposed to “flourishing.”  My reflections here come from my wondering what it means when more and more elements of life are regarded as market commodities (like art, health care, or  fresh water, for example), subject to all the vagaries and rapacities of market forces, and are not also evaluated (assigned value) from some other vantage point. I do not long for ancient Indo-European society, but I do think that the “relentless revolution” (to use Joyce Appleby’s phrase) tends to creatively, blindly, and irreversibly transform the raw materials of the world, and the way we imagine it and dwell within it with our fellow humans and our fellow creatures, into objects considered primarily as materials for some market.  Just wondering….

The views of this blog are those of the writer alone, and not to be attributed to MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Test scores: What do they really tell us?

Back when high stakes tests were the Big New Thing, and Massachusetts was bringing in its MCAS tests, researchers noted early on that the strongest predictor of school performance was demography (including things like median household income, educational attainment, etc.).  This was a finding that was not new, and not unique — indeed, similar results were widespread.  The notion at the time was that the test data would lead to the identification of low-performing schools (leading to interventions that would improve them), and of schools outperforming their demography (possibly indicating the presence of contributing factors that could be replicated elsewhere).

Well, as it turns out, the story has not changed that much.  Here we have now a recent study from New Jersey by Christopher Tienken of Seton Hall Univ. and colleagues,  which finds that a model built on just 3 demographic factors provides the most accurate predictor of middle school student results on the statewide standardized tests. (h/t to Curmudgucation again, which see for more commentary).  The 3 factors are: [a] Percentage of families in a community with incomes over $200,000/year;  [b] percentage of people in a community in poverty, and [c] percentage of people in a community with bachelor’s degrees.    Just as Gaudet in the MCAS paper mentioned above found,the fundamental equation remains:

DEMOGRAPHY + school = results

Tienken et al. have a very insightful discussion of what middle school is all about — the subjects targeted by the standardized tests are hardly the most important things young adolescents are learning during these years.

They also point out that demography is a proxy — that it stands in for things like summer learning opportunities, enriched after-school opportunities, and homes and communities that can provide cognitive and affective advantages, especially for children whose parents can afford them.  Despite all the qualifications and caveats one can make about how various public and private institutions can address some of these issues, the fact is that there has been over the past few decades a fairly steady retreat from such equalizing of opportunities, and in any case they are rarely enough, for enough children.

I think of this as I watch the news of the past few months and years,  and see school choice and similar measures gain in popularity again, and as market thinking continues to consolidate its over-extended hold on American thinking about just about anything.  Suppose I can choose to send my child to a more opulent school, thanks to vouchers from heaven.  This will not help me purchase tutors, or summer camp, or enable me to work fewer hours so I can be at home reading books with my children, or playing music with them, or engaging in chores and crafts…. No wonder some advocates of the mainstream “reforms” of the past few decades are feeling a bit blue about how their big experiment (conducted on our children and teachers and parents and…) is turning out.

How does this look from where you are?

 

 

Note:  The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the writer alone.  Do not blame MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation for them.  In fact, don’t “blame” — post a comment and build a conversation!

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Apples, oranges, and TIMSS

New TIMSS test scores are out, and the commentators are commenting.  Generally speaking, international comparisons are used in the popular media, and in policy debates, as rhetorical weapons, to renew or update the hair-on-fire language of A Nation At Risk about how the poor quality of our educational system is causing the USA to decline from Top Nation status.  The tut-tutting has been muted thus far on this release, since the US election and its aftermath have been the big stories, but the overall story line is set already, as in the blog post  by Ed Week’s  Sarah Sparks, “Rising, but mixed, math science performance.”   I note that the goal posts are shifting, and that comparisons over time must be muddied by the re-design of the tests themselves.  Sparks quotes a researcher at Boston College:

 “When we started [conducting TIMSS] in 1995, our math was all content—algebra, geometry—and in science, chemistry, physics…but now we also include cognitive demands, thinking skills … school is getting to have a broader dimension that is quite different than it was 20 years ago.”

Looking at the horse race, we can see that the US math scores come in well behind the front-runners (US 539 for middle-school, compared to e.g.  Singapore at 618, Korea at 608) as well as some non-East Asian stars, such as Northern Ireland (570) and Kazakhstan (544).  Similar results are seen in science: US high school 530, compared with, e.g. Singapore (top again, 597), Japan (571), and Kazakhstan (533).

What do we think about this?  I have to say I don’t think about it much at all, because there is persistent evidence that these comparisons are not very informative. A paper by Carnoy et al., from the Economic Policy Institute from about a year ago, “Bringing it back home,” argues that country-to-country comparisons are often deceptive — and there are many nuances to this.  For example:  While we sometimes hear that impoverished students in the US are pulling our scores down, Carnoy and his co-authors cite evidence that these “average scores” obscure positive trends among such students:

Focusing on national progress in average test scores obscures the fact that socioeconomically disadvantaged U.S. students in some states have made very large gains in mathematics on both the PISA and TIMSS—gains larger than those made by similarly disadvantaged students in other countries.

In this study, and in another by Carnoy alone, “International test comparisons and educational policy,” the researchers suggest that because of the tremendous differences between the educational systems of other nations, and the 51 systems here in this country, “comparison” is hard to establish rigorously.   By contrast, the important differences among the United States might be more fruitful ground for seeking comparisons to understand why some states rank very high (even on the international comparisons) and others very low.  For example, Carnoy et al write:

As a suggestive strategy for further (qualitative) policy research, we paired off states with different patterns of gains in 8th grade math. This reveals, for example, that 8th grade students in Massachusetts made much larger gains after 2003 than students in Connecticut, that students in New Jersey made larger gains than students in New York after 2003, and that students in Texas already started out scoring higher in 8th grade math in 1992, but still made larger gains over 1992–2013 than students in California, especially after 2003.

This strategy might have the additional benefit of opening paths to more coherence across this country in educational inputs, e.g. in the opportunities for learning available to all children;  or in methodologies, e.g. a significant shift towards an inquiry approach, or a reduction in harmful levels of testing.

Yong Zhao writes about this year’s math scores in a piece that appears in Washington Post’s Answer Sheet blog. His piece is entitled “East Asians topped US students again on international tests.  But are their schools really better?”  He points out first that US students have never scored at the top of international comparisons. Indeed, US scores have stayed roughly where they are, relative to other countries’, during all the era of international testing, through one administration and “reform” wave after another.  This has meant that test scores have served as perennial go-to ammunition for people making the case that schools are in decline and national mediocrity will result — even as the US has remained durably near the top in world measures of competitiveness, creativity, and productivity.

Zhao brings some other results from international comparisons that are thought-provoking, rarely mentioned, and in my mind argue for the intra-national comparisons that Carnoy et al. advocate.  For example (I present only the claims, he provides the stats!)

1) East Asian parents are not “very satisfied” with their schools.2) East Asian schools do not necessarily put a “very high emphasis” on academic success.  3) East Asian teachers are not “very satisfied” with their jobs.4) East Asian students do not have a “high sense of school belonging.”  5) East Asian students do not necessarily receive more classroom instruction compared to the United States, Australia, Canada or England. 6) East Asian systems are not the top users of computers in math lessons. 7) East Asian students receive the least engaging math lessons in the world.8) East Asian students DO NOT “very much like learning mathematics.”9) East Asian students have very little confidence in mathematics. 10). East Asian students don’t value math much.

So, he says, what does this tell us about the schools?  What lessons should US schools learn from these high-scoring systems in Asia (which are not all identical by any means!)?     Zhao summarizes:

So compared with most of the students who participated in the TIMMS 2015 study, East Asian students have less engaging math lessons, they spend less time studying math in schools, they like math or value math less, and they are less confident in math. So how did the East Asian students achieve the best scores?

His answer adroitly points up many of the oversimplifying and stereotyping tendencies rife in educational policy — with regard to international comparisons, yes, but elsewhere, too:

The answer may lie outside schools. To me, the answer has to be the chopsticks, something common to all these East Asian students interact with on a daily basis. To improve math scores, we should all begin using chopsticks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The social contract of science education

I had occasion this week to read the Pew Research Center’s 2015 reports “Public and scientists’ views on science and policy, ” and a follow-up, “An elaboration of AAAS scientists’ views.”  Got me to thinking about the work of science education, and how our society (the US for sure, and probably elsewhere) is a multiculture with respect to science.

The Pew study ask about a range of topics, from specific (e.g. views on vaccination, fracking, or evolution) to more general, policy-level questions (e.g. how US science ranks in comparison to other countries’, whether government investments in science are worth it).  The analysis disaggregates the data according to various demographics;  the “elaboration” disaggregates responding scientists into “working PhD scientists,” “active researchers,” and (with respect to specific questions) “domain experts.”

Interestingly, the various sub-groups of scientists tended mostly to agree, with occasional sub-group divergence — for example, on the desirability of fracking, 47% of “working engineers” approved, while only 38% of “working earth scientists” did.

For science educators, though, the most interesting differences may be the gap between the opinions of scientists as a group, and the general public.  Some special points of interest:

A. Fifty-four percent of the general public believes that US science is “best in the world”; 34% see it as “average.”  Scientists have an even more positive view:  92% see it as “best in the world,” and another 6% see it as “average.” (Hard to know how “best” is measured, of course.)

B.  On three big topics, the public disbelieves that there is a consensus view among scientists, the 3 being the Big Bang (52% believe scientists are divided), climate change (37%), and evolution (29%)  (The actual figures are considerably higher, e.g. evolution 98%, climate change at least 87%).    This divergence is of great interest, because there’s so much sociology involved. Evolution controversies have persisted since Darwin, and  the imputation of disagreement among scientists has been an important weapon in the arsenal of creationist rhetoric.  The Big Bang theory resembles evolution, in that it replaces a biblical account of “origins” with one relying on natural causes only;  in this case, too, disagreement among scientists is desirable in the eyes of opponents.

The same goes for climate change, of course.  Moreover, the creation of doubt about the science and scientists of climate change has been the aim of a well-documented disinformation campaign over many years.  Yet Pew shows that scientists as a group are seen as more trustworthy than any other group in public life, except the military.   At least one study (Ping et al 2015) provided evidence that when people who disbelieved in human-caused climate change are told the actual extent of scientific agreement about it, that information results in a measurable reduction in “skepticism” or denial.  (I know of no comparable study about public attitudes about the Big Bang or evolution.)   This obviously has potential importance in the effort to mitigate or adapt to climate change.

C. Opinions on the quality of US STEM ed are also interestingly divergent.  Among the general population, 29% see it as “best in the world,” 39% see it as “average,” and 29% see it as below the international average.  Scientists are more negative:  16% see it as “best,” 38% as average, and 46% as below average.

Other studies over the years have shown a high public interest in science topics, so the basic picture is, “We are interested in science, and US science is really good, but we are cautious about accepting guidance from scientists, and we aren’t really satisfied with our STEM education.

The disjunct around specific issues often relates to the ways in which scientific research intersects with other values, all within the context of an anxiety-provoking (post)modernity. I myself am quite clear that science is not the only tool we must use to make our way forward in the world, yet it is a powerful one which can provide an effective approach to many questions both natural and cultural.  To quote Dewey:

Science represents the fruition of the cognitive factors in experience. Instead of contenting itself with a mere statement of what commends itself to personal or customary experience, it aims at a statement which will reveal the sources, grounds, and consequences of a belief.,,,The function which science has to perform in the curriculum is that which it has performed for the race: emancipation from local and temporary incidents of experience, and the opening of intellectual vistas unobscured by the accidents of personal habit and predilection… In emancipating an idea from the particular context in which it originated and giving it a wider reference the results of the experience of any individual are put at the disposal of all men. Thus ultimately and philosophically science is the organ of general social progress.  (Democracy and Education ch. 17)

Perhaps I would demur at calling science THE organ of progress, but science as a method of intelligent action is indispensable.

Like many science educators, I think of the gap, or even alienation,  between scientist and citizen to derive from insufficient exchange.  In discussing controversial topics with nonscientists,  I have often felt it important to get across how laborious it can be to establish even a little new insight into some small question — and how fallible even this excellent enterprise can be, how much in need of reflection, correction, debate, revision.

Thus, it seems to me that, though I am not a big fan of NGSS, the call to engage students with content through ” the practices” is surely in the right direction, and needs to be accompanied by stories of many kinds  — from theory-building to narratives of discovery, disputation, refutation, and further inquiry.  For this, scientists and science educators need to keep working more and more effectively together, each learning from the other more and more attentively.

But there’s another thing:  Who is it we are trying to educate?  Are we bold enough?  Scientists have in the past few years been critiquing the way they take part in the public discourse, playing a leavening part in creative civic ferment. Jane Lubchenko, the great ecologist and quondam NOAA director,   said a few years ago:

In my experience, scientific information is often not taken into account because the information is not readily available, or it’s not understandable, or it’s not seen as being relevant or useful, or it’s not seen as being credible to the person making the decision. Oftentimes, it’s a combination of many or all of those.

Scientists bear responsibility for all of these failures, to varying degrees. And we can be proactive in addressing the reasons why scientific information is often not available, understandable, useable, or credible. For example, in my experience, many, many people, including many politicians, simply assume they won’t understand what a scientist is saying. “It’s too technical!” “I don’t understand all those big words!” “Scientists caveat everything so much; I guess they don’t aren’t confident about anything.” These are statements I’ve heard multiple times. I think this is highly unfortunate.

Later in the same address, Lubchenk0 said

I believe that academic scholars have a responsibility to be proactive in engaging directly with society. I believe that part of our obligation—our social contract, if you will—involves a two-way communication with society. Specifically, in exchange for public funding, our jobs are both to create new knowledge and to share it widely with transparency and humility. When I first proposed this idea of a social contract for science eighteen years ago in my presidential address, the academic culture was so chilling toward public engagement, I was pretty darn sure that I would have rotten tomatoes thrown at me when I gave my speech. However, much to my surprise and pleasure, I was given a standing ovation instead. I was told it was the first standing ovation that an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) presidential address had garnered. I took it as the beginning of a new awakening within the academic community.

Well, and the same  thing needs to be true of learning scientists and science educators — we must learn deeply, research passionately, sure, but also feel it as part of our contract with society to tell the story — of findings and of methods — far beyond our usual circles.  Not just to colleagues;  not just to policy makers;  but to as many kinds  of people as we can.  And when your practice comes to include this kind of public engagement, tell colleagues how it went, so they are equipped and emboldened to do it themselves.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment