A recently published article, summarizing new data presented at a high energy physics conference in Europe, show an excess of particles in the mass spectrum that may end up being the Higgs boson, as some like Nobel winner Leon Lederman have called the 'God particle.' This is a particle that has been predicted for some 45 years, from a theory known as the Standard Model. This is the theory that covers the known forces and particles in Nature, minus gravity. It has been wildly successful when compared with experimental data, and one of the key pieces is the Higgs boson and Higgs field. This particle and field are responsible for nothing less than the matter we are all made from. It is the theoretical mechanism that allows energy to transform into matter, which is summed up by Einstein's E = mc^2.
Physicists on the experiments producing these data do caution the world NOT to jump to any conclusions. In science, rumors are left just as that, rumors. There are strict statistical results that are needed before one can claim discovery. There are double and triple checks of analysis algorithms, calibrations of the detectors, fine-tuning theoretical programs called Monte Carlos to re-check the backgrounds for these types of particle decays, and many other checks before anyone would even think of calling a few excess events a discovery, especially something as vital as the Higgs. We will see over the next few months what the final conclusions are, but this provides a sense of excitement for the world of physics.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Mathematical Minds
From one of my favorite blogs, which has a focus on looking at brain functioning to understand all sorts of issues in education, learning, and life, there is a wonderful post about mathematical minds.
Gifted math minds really do 'light up' differently than average math minds when looking at math-related problems. And because of the way the brain is organized and behaves for different mental tasks, gifted math students can be difficult to identify from commonly used assessments and classroom behaviors. For instance, many truly advanced math students are not strong verbally, which can make them difficult to pick out of a crowd, and many like to 'do their own thing' when it comes to math and not at all be interested in the rote math memorization so often done in school. And likely the single most common trait is the love of solving problems of any type. This shows up not just in the 'numbers people,' but also tinkerers. Can you relate to any of these traits?
Gifted math minds really do 'light up' differently than average math minds when looking at math-related problems. And because of the way the brain is organized and behaves for different mental tasks, gifted math students can be difficult to identify from commonly used assessments and classroom behaviors. For instance, many truly advanced math students are not strong verbally, which can make them difficult to pick out of a crowd, and many like to 'do their own thing' when it comes to math and not at all be interested in the rote math memorization so often done in school. And likely the single most common trait is the love of solving problems of any type. This shows up not just in the 'numbers people,' but also tinkerers. Can you relate to any of these traits?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Macrocosmic Object in a Quantum State
My last post was about making some sense out of what wave-particle duality is all about. Coincidentally, when I checked out TED videos just a little while ago, I saw the one below. Physicist Aaron O'Connell is the first to show a macrocosmic object go into a quantum state...it goes into a superposition state where it is vibrating and not vibrating at the same time! Completely weird, but, hey, that's quantum mechanics. We will see more of this sort of experiment in the next few years, to be sure, and who knows where this will lead as far as applications in life. Will it be more advanced quantum computing devices? Or something we have not even considered? Perhaps! Check out the discussion.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
An Attempt to Make Some Sense of Quantum Mechanics
Gaining any level of understanding of quantum mechanics is one of the great intellectual challenges in science. In a quantum world of indeterminism and probability, uncertainty and fuzziness, phenomena completely unseen in our everyday lives are the norm for atoms and particles.
At the center of the strangeness is particle-wave duality, the notion that particles can at times act like ‘solid’ balls, but in different circumstances can behave like a wave. Likewise, something we normally think of as a wave, such as light, can certainly act like a wave under certain conditions, but in quantum mechanics light can also behave like particles we refer to as photons. In fact, a favorite question I pose to students is, ‘When light is traveling from a light bulb to your eye, is it a particle or wave?’ Ultimately, someone will offer the answer, ‘It is both!’ That is an acceptable answer; but what does this mean? How can an ‘object’ be two things simultaneously, which is what the answer ‘both’ implies.
No one is comfortable with this answer, and yet it fits in with the foundational principles of quantum mechanics. The reason is, in the mathematics of quantum mechanics, objects are described with a wave function. This is a mathematical function that encompasses possible states the object can take. So a photon that is moving through space can be thought of as a combination of two states, something like Photon = [particle state] + [wave state]. More specifically, this function can be used to determine the probability of finding the photon in a particle or wave state.
But I think most of us still come back to the same questions: How do we interpret this mathematical nonsense? What does this mean for the object? This is where an analogy comes in handy, that will perhaps put this probabilistic concept into a more understandable context.
If I am talking about this in a class, I ask students to look around at each other and identify the personality snapshot of each of their classmates. This means to identify who is happy, sad, confused, angry, sarcastic, sleepy, bored, or anything else. So while there are numerous possible ‘personality states’ any person can have, while observing a person we can select one personality state at that time because we are interacting with them. However, what do we do when the bell rings and everyone goes on their way? If I ask someone to identify which personality state a specific person is in when they are no longer available for observation or interaction, what is the answer? The best we can do is to effectively guess…but to do this mathematically, we would acknowledge that at any given moment when a person is not being observed in any way, we cannot be certain about the personality state and can only try to identify the probability of that person being in each state. Perhaps there is a 20% chance she is happy, and 25% chance of being sad, and so on for each possible personality state.
This is the way we think about particles and waves when those entities are not being observed. When we do observe the entity, the act of observing selects out the personality from the mix of possible personalities. Another way of saying it is the experiment we do selects out a single observable state that we then identify. For a person, maybe it is the ‘happy’ state that becomes crystallized out of the ‘personality state’ function that includes all the possible personality states. For an electron, if we put it through a diffraction grating the wave personality is selected, whereas if we shoot it at an atom and it is deflected, the particle personality was selected instead.
Thinking this way is not necessarily normal, obvious or instinctive, but it is something we can try to understand the way the quantum world works. Of course, in real quantum mechanical problems, the mathematics becomes very hard very fast, but trying to find more concrete ways of thinking about the consequences of probabilistic concepts can only help the student to whom this is all new.
At the center of the strangeness is particle-wave duality, the notion that particles can at times act like ‘solid’ balls, but in different circumstances can behave like a wave. Likewise, something we normally think of as a wave, such as light, can certainly act like a wave under certain conditions, but in quantum mechanics light can also behave like particles we refer to as photons. In fact, a favorite question I pose to students is, ‘When light is traveling from a light bulb to your eye, is it a particle or wave?’ Ultimately, someone will offer the answer, ‘It is both!’ That is an acceptable answer; but what does this mean? How can an ‘object’ be two things simultaneously, which is what the answer ‘both’ implies.
No one is comfortable with this answer, and yet it fits in with the foundational principles of quantum mechanics. The reason is, in the mathematics of quantum mechanics, objects are described with a wave function. This is a mathematical function that encompasses possible states the object can take. So a photon that is moving through space can be thought of as a combination of two states, something like Photon = [particle state] + [wave state]. More specifically, this function can be used to determine the probability of finding the photon in a particle or wave state.
But I think most of us still come back to the same questions: How do we interpret this mathematical nonsense? What does this mean for the object? This is where an analogy comes in handy, that will perhaps put this probabilistic concept into a more understandable context.
If I am talking about this in a class, I ask students to look around at each other and identify the personality snapshot of each of their classmates. This means to identify who is happy, sad, confused, angry, sarcastic, sleepy, bored, or anything else. So while there are numerous possible ‘personality states’ any person can have, while observing a person we can select one personality state at that time because we are interacting with them. However, what do we do when the bell rings and everyone goes on their way? If I ask someone to identify which personality state a specific person is in when they are no longer available for observation or interaction, what is the answer? The best we can do is to effectively guess…but to do this mathematically, we would acknowledge that at any given moment when a person is not being observed in any way, we cannot be certain about the personality state and can only try to identify the probability of that person being in each state. Perhaps there is a 20% chance she is happy, and 25% chance of being sad, and so on for each possible personality state.
This is the way we think about particles and waves when those entities are not being observed. When we do observe the entity, the act of observing selects out the personality from the mix of possible personalities. Another way of saying it is the experiment we do selects out a single observable state that we then identify. For a person, maybe it is the ‘happy’ state that becomes crystallized out of the ‘personality state’ function that includes all the possible personality states. For an electron, if we put it through a diffraction grating the wave personality is selected, whereas if we shoot it at an atom and it is deflected, the particle personality was selected instead.
Thinking this way is not necessarily normal, obvious or instinctive, but it is something we can try to understand the way the quantum world works. Of course, in real quantum mechanical problems, the mathematics becomes very hard very fast, but trying to find more concrete ways of thinking about the consequences of probabilistic concepts can only help the student to whom this is all new.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Robotic Cars - The Future is Here
A short TED talk about Google's self-driving car. This is the sort of thing commonly found in science fiction and futurism presentations, but the technology exists now. It is the sort of device that reminds us about robotics and 'intelligent machines.' It is the sort of device that reminds us that there is very 'cool' technology that will continue to wow us, but at the same time it will make us think more and more about the consequences, intended and unintended, of the development of smart machines.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Interesting Take on China's advance - Why and how are they different from West/
Here is an interesting talk about China, and how a recent projection, as a post-western economic recession world status, has the Chinese economy matching and surpassing the U.S. economy by 2020 - just one decade away.
Martin Jacques goes over some key differences between China and the West, and how they have been able to grow so rapidly, often befuddling western analysts who think in western ways. We should not be thinking of China as a nation-state, but rather a civilization-state, as Jacques argues. Very fascinating and important topic.
Martin Jacques goes over some key differences between China and the West, and how they have been able to grow so rapidly, often befuddling western analysts who think in western ways. We should not be thinking of China as a nation-state, but rather a civilization-state, as Jacques argues. Very fascinating and important topic.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Looking for Feedback - If you have kids, especially...Can this story help learn some science?
I am looking for feedback. I have a children's story that tries to get the concept of atoms and ultimately quarks across to children. I see kids in the age range of 4-8 or so as the target group.
If you have kids and want to read it, or if you have any comments of your own as to what you think about it, please let me know! If you have any experience with children's books, also let me know as I have a number of questions for you. I can see some interesting illustrations that could be produced for the story. Thanks.
Here goes:
Little Sue and the Rock
By Mark Vondracek, Ph.D.
It was after school, and Little Sue was walking down the street,
when she noticed a pretty little rock down by her feet.
She picked it up, looked at it, and wondered what was inside,
when all of a sudden she was going on an amazing ride.
Little Sue began to shrink,
and she did not know what to think.
Was she really getting smaller,
or was the rock just getting taller?
Whatever the case, she quickly began to see,
sparkling crystals appear, like when the sun shines on the sea.
And while these crystals were simply amazing,
little Sue knew this was only the surface of the rock she was grazing.
Ever smaller did little Sue grow,
before she was in a world she did not know.
Those beautiful crystals disappeared,
into a number of balls forming patterns, that much was clear.
The balls were bound together, which to little Sue was very cool,
when she realized she was seeing objects her teacher called molecules.
But she also wondered what was with those once little balls,
which seemed to be getting bigger as her size continued to get small.
Even though little Sue’s height was still decreasing,
she could not help but think this new world was pretty pleasing.
She kept approaching those balls, and it was becoming a little cloudy,
and the balls seemed to be shaking, and even seemed a little rowdy.
“Those balls must be atoms!” exclaimed little Sue to herself,
she knew this because she had read that science book on her shelf.
As she shrunk into one of the clouds it seemed a little fuzzy,
and as she struggled to see, smaller specks flew by and sounded a little buzzy.
Little Sue was checking out the electrons flying by,
moving very fast, so fast she could not even say “Hi.”
And before long little Sue shrunk into a place,
where the electrons were now gone and all she saw was empty space.
It seemed like forever that little Sue kept on shrinking,
seeing nothing around caused her to start thinking.
“Is there nothing else around here that will stop my fall?”
when suddenly in the distance she could see another little ball.
Atoms have a second part, little Sue seemed to remember,
with electrons whizzing and circling the outside, and a nucleus in the center.
Little Sue kept shrinking and suddenly was able to see,
a bunch of smaller balls in the nucleus, glued together so perfectly .
“Wow, these little balls are protons and neutrons! This is really cool!”
as little Sue was remembering that science lesson from school.
She was now seeing the smallest pieces of that rock she had been holding,
at least this is what she thought before she got a little scolding.
Little Sue heard voices complaining as she shrank a little more,
falling inside one of those protons that were at the atom’s core.
Even smaller balls were inside and finally had a chance to make their mark,
by introducing themselves to little Sue, saying, “Hello, we are the quarks!”
For little Sue this was unexpected and really quite the surprise,
as she began to look around and rub her wide-open eyes.
“Quarks,” she said, “were not mentioned in my science book.”
and she closed her eyes for a moment, then opened them for a second look.
The quarks explained to little Sue they aren’t very well known,
but they do exist and are real, with identities all their own.
“Our names are Up and Down,” they said to little Sue,
“but the protons and neutrons are more popular, so what can we do?”
Just then little Sue realized she was no longer shrinking,
for now she had reached the smallest piece of the rock, and she was left thinking –
I have seen the smallest piece of the rock….or have I not?
could there be something smaller than the quarks, as small as a dot?
For now, little Sue will need to wonder about that question,
but as she grows back up in size I leave her this suggestion.
For little Sue, as well as all her little school friends,
if you don’t know the answer to your questions do not leave that as the end.
Keep asking your questions, and don’t leave any of them to silence;
look around, try to find an answer – and before you know it, you will be doing science.
It doesn’t matter what it is, from the smallest atom to outer space,
because you will find questions that still need answers all over the place.
If you have kids and want to read it, or if you have any comments of your own as to what you think about it, please let me know! If you have any experience with children's books, also let me know as I have a number of questions for you. I can see some interesting illustrations that could be produced for the story. Thanks.
Here goes:
Little Sue and the Rock
By Mark Vondracek, Ph.D.
It was after school, and Little Sue was walking down the street,
when she noticed a pretty little rock down by her feet.
She picked it up, looked at it, and wondered what was inside,
when all of a sudden she was going on an amazing ride.
Little Sue began to shrink,
and she did not know what to think.
Was she really getting smaller,
or was the rock just getting taller?
Whatever the case, she quickly began to see,
sparkling crystals appear, like when the sun shines on the sea.
And while these crystals were simply amazing,
little Sue knew this was only the surface of the rock she was grazing.
Ever smaller did little Sue grow,
before she was in a world she did not know.
Those beautiful crystals disappeared,
into a number of balls forming patterns, that much was clear.
The balls were bound together, which to little Sue was very cool,
when she realized she was seeing objects her teacher called molecules.
But she also wondered what was with those once little balls,
which seemed to be getting bigger as her size continued to get small.
Even though little Sue’s height was still decreasing,
she could not help but think this new world was pretty pleasing.
She kept approaching those balls, and it was becoming a little cloudy,
and the balls seemed to be shaking, and even seemed a little rowdy.
“Those balls must be atoms!” exclaimed little Sue to herself,
she knew this because she had read that science book on her shelf.
As she shrunk into one of the clouds it seemed a little fuzzy,
and as she struggled to see, smaller specks flew by and sounded a little buzzy.
Little Sue was checking out the electrons flying by,
moving very fast, so fast she could not even say “Hi.”
And before long little Sue shrunk into a place,
where the electrons were now gone and all she saw was empty space.
It seemed like forever that little Sue kept on shrinking,
seeing nothing around caused her to start thinking.
“Is there nothing else around here that will stop my fall?”
when suddenly in the distance she could see another little ball.
Atoms have a second part, little Sue seemed to remember,
with electrons whizzing and circling the outside, and a nucleus in the center.
Little Sue kept shrinking and suddenly was able to see,
a bunch of smaller balls in the nucleus, glued together so perfectly .
“Wow, these little balls are protons and neutrons! This is really cool!”
as little Sue was remembering that science lesson from school.
She was now seeing the smallest pieces of that rock she had been holding,
at least this is what she thought before she got a little scolding.
Little Sue heard voices complaining as she shrank a little more,
falling inside one of those protons that were at the atom’s core.
Even smaller balls were inside and finally had a chance to make their mark,
by introducing themselves to little Sue, saying, “Hello, we are the quarks!”
For little Sue this was unexpected and really quite the surprise,
as she began to look around and rub her wide-open eyes.
“Quarks,” she said, “were not mentioned in my science book.”
and she closed her eyes for a moment, then opened them for a second look.
The quarks explained to little Sue they aren’t very well known,
but they do exist and are real, with identities all their own.
“Our names are Up and Down,” they said to little Sue,
“but the protons and neutrons are more popular, so what can we do?”
Just then little Sue realized she was no longer shrinking,
for now she had reached the smallest piece of the rock, and she was left thinking –
I have seen the smallest piece of the rock….or have I not?
could there be something smaller than the quarks, as small as a dot?
For now, little Sue will need to wonder about that question,
but as she grows back up in size I leave her this suggestion.
For little Sue, as well as all her little school friends,
if you don’t know the answer to your questions do not leave that as the end.
Keep asking your questions, and don’t leave any of them to silence;
look around, try to find an answer – and before you know it, you will be doing science.
It doesn’t matter what it is, from the smallest atom to outer space,
because you will find questions that still need answers all over the place.
Where the world is headed - An Economic Phase Transition from Hyperconsumtion to Collaborative Consumption
I found this TED talk very interesting. One can certainly see a change in how people interact with each other due to the Internet and global wireless communications, and I think Rachel Botsman presents a strong argument for a phase transition from a hyperconsumption economy (I believe this term comes from Thomas Friedman) to a collaborative consumption model.
Multi-disciplinarity and The Birth Of America
Back in July I read an interesting book entitled The Science of Liberty by Timothy Ferris. I posted on how the birth of modern science developed within the same mindset and intellectual framework as the first modern democracy, the United States. In fact, this book argues the U.S. would not have formed had it not been for the birth of modern science. Building off that theme, a second book, Steven Johnson's The Invention of Air: A Story of Science, Faith, Revolution and The Birth of America, examines the life and work of Joseph Priestley, and his deep friendships with Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and his influence on those two Founding Fathers as well as John Adams.
Priestley began as one of the leading and first modern chemists, whose main contemporary scientific rival was Antoine Lavoisier. Priestley had numerous discoveries, including providing key evidence for the existence of oxygen and its role in combustion and life itself, but what was new for me was his deep friendship with Benjamin Franklin. Franklin and Priestley met and corresponded with each other about science for many years prior to the American Revolution, and influenced each other greatly as far as the development of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data. Their letters show how they were onto the conceptual understanding of the cycling of oxygen and carbon dioxide for all of life, and how ecosystems work in terms of the flow and transformation of different energy types from one to another. These concepts were decades ahead of their time.
However, as Franklin became embedded in politics and the Revolution, the time he had to commit to science was limited at best. It was Priestley who kept him updated on scientific progress, and Franklin's influence on Priestley began to turn Priestley's attention more towards politics. In addition to the politics, Priestley also began writing about religion. His attention and publication of his views on Christianity, most notably History of Corruptions of Christianity, where he argues against the more mystical aspects within the Bible (dismissing the Trinity, miracles, and contradictory concepts in doctrine), actually led to riots among Christians and a mob that burned his house, lab, and called for his death. Priestley ended up in exile, and moved to America. It did not take long before he met and befriended Thomas Jefferson. Even before becoming friends with Jefferson, he knew and befriended John Adams when Adams was Vice President.
Priestley was a deep thinking man who believed in complete openness and sharing of information and data with as many people as possible. He wrote everything down, in exhaustive detail, especially with his experimental procedures and data. Had he the technology, he likely would have developed the Internet. Why was he this way? Priestley and Franklin agreed in their correspondence that by publishing everything in the sciences allowed them to "excite the attentions of the ingenius." Great ideas develop by people brainstorming and sharing thoughts. If one person is on a path but cannot quite see the answer, someone else might, and that is good for progress. This mindset is at the heart and soul of all modern science disciplines, as well as academia in general. This is what 'connectivity' and the Internet is all about, or at least the Internet provides the appropriate platform for sharing and exciting the attentions of the ingenius. Check out my post from another of Johnson's books about how ideas form.
Providing information to the masses is a necessity for democracy. Priestley's preaching and practice of sharing information was a key influence on the development of the vision of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams as they were helping invent America. Priestley also resisted just having a single focus. The practice of the day was for science, religion, philosophy, politics, and other fields of study from overlapping. Priestley helped break this mold, as he was a firm believer in multidisciplinary approaches to topics. He and Franklin in particular discussed this concept, as if they were forming the modern field of complex systems. Having and using a multi-disciplinary mindset allowed some of our Founding Fathers to be great visionaries that were needed to make the American experiment to work. In fact, after Priestley died and Jefferson and Adams began their decade-long, legendary exchange of letters up until they died (on July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence), whose name appeared more frequently than Franklin's, Washington's or Madison's? It was Priestley.
The key players who gave birth to America were geniuses. They were scientists at heart, and this mindset and experience were key to the development of the American concept. But they were also willing to share ideas, try new things, and collaborate to solve major, complex, and multi-disciplinary problems. And the big three of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson had a common thread of Joseph Priestley to help guide them over decades worth of time. He showed how science, religion and politics were inter-related and all had to be 'on the table' simultaneously when developing new ideas. It is a fascinating story, involving fascinating individuals. These are the same themes and issues we talk about today, whether it involves current problems the nation and world face, as well as with reforming our education system as we try to prepare kids for the 21st century. These men from the 18th and early 19th centuries have much to teach us still, and I think they deserve their say!
Priestley began as one of the leading and first modern chemists, whose main contemporary scientific rival was Antoine Lavoisier. Priestley had numerous discoveries, including providing key evidence for the existence of oxygen and its role in combustion and life itself, but what was new for me was his deep friendship with Benjamin Franklin. Franklin and Priestley met and corresponded with each other about science for many years prior to the American Revolution, and influenced each other greatly as far as the development of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data. Their letters show how they were onto the conceptual understanding of the cycling of oxygen and carbon dioxide for all of life, and how ecosystems work in terms of the flow and transformation of different energy types from one to another. These concepts were decades ahead of their time.
However, as Franklin became embedded in politics and the Revolution, the time he had to commit to science was limited at best. It was Priestley who kept him updated on scientific progress, and Franklin's influence on Priestley began to turn Priestley's attention more towards politics. In addition to the politics, Priestley also began writing about religion. His attention and publication of his views on Christianity, most notably History of Corruptions of Christianity, where he argues against the more mystical aspects within the Bible (dismissing the Trinity, miracles, and contradictory concepts in doctrine), actually led to riots among Christians and a mob that burned his house, lab, and called for his death. Priestley ended up in exile, and moved to America. It did not take long before he met and befriended Thomas Jefferson. Even before becoming friends with Jefferson, he knew and befriended John Adams when Adams was Vice President.
Priestley was a deep thinking man who believed in complete openness and sharing of information and data with as many people as possible. He wrote everything down, in exhaustive detail, especially with his experimental procedures and data. Had he the technology, he likely would have developed the Internet. Why was he this way? Priestley and Franklin agreed in their correspondence that by publishing everything in the sciences allowed them to "excite the attentions of the ingenius." Great ideas develop by people brainstorming and sharing thoughts. If one person is on a path but cannot quite see the answer, someone else might, and that is good for progress. This mindset is at the heart and soul of all modern science disciplines, as well as academia in general. This is what 'connectivity' and the Internet is all about, or at least the Internet provides the appropriate platform for sharing and exciting the attentions of the ingenius. Check out my post from another of Johnson's books about how ideas form.
Providing information to the masses is a necessity for democracy. Priestley's preaching and practice of sharing information was a key influence on the development of the vision of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams as they were helping invent America. Priestley also resisted just having a single focus. The practice of the day was for science, religion, philosophy, politics, and other fields of study from overlapping. Priestley helped break this mold, as he was a firm believer in multidisciplinary approaches to topics. He and Franklin in particular discussed this concept, as if they were forming the modern field of complex systems. Having and using a multi-disciplinary mindset allowed some of our Founding Fathers to be great visionaries that were needed to make the American experiment to work. In fact, after Priestley died and Jefferson and Adams began their decade-long, legendary exchange of letters up until they died (on July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence), whose name appeared more frequently than Franklin's, Washington's or Madison's? It was Priestley.
The key players who gave birth to America were geniuses. They were scientists at heart, and this mindset and experience were key to the development of the American concept. But they were also willing to share ideas, try new things, and collaborate to solve major, complex, and multi-disciplinary problems. And the big three of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson had a common thread of Joseph Priestley to help guide them over decades worth of time. He showed how science, religion and politics were inter-related and all had to be 'on the table' simultaneously when developing new ideas. It is a fascinating story, involving fascinating individuals. These are the same themes and issues we talk about today, whether it involves current problems the nation and world face, as well as with reforming our education system as we try to prepare kids for the 21st century. These men from the 18th and early 19th centuries have much to teach us still, and I think they deserve their say!
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Example of what young children are capable of doing
Hat tip to a former student for sharing an article about a class of 8-10 year old children in Britain, who did a scientific study of bees and ended up being published in a Royal Society journal. This is great!
This fits in nicely with my last three posts. This is a prime example of 21st Century learning. This is what our kids here in the U.S. should be doing, rather than largely ignoring science and the social sciences to put all the focus on reading and math, in order to do well on high-stakes testing for NCLB. This is multi- and interdisciplinary work, where kids learn that science, math, writing, reading, and communication are all related, and that the content being presented in school matters in the real world. This is giving them experience and practice and exposure to problem solving, critically thinking about data and observations, trial and error with experiments, trouble shooting, tinkering, collaborating, finding information with modern tools, and how one's work is presented to the world. It gives them a chance to discover things on their own, and allows them to be creative and innovative as they try to learn about and figure out a complex problem. This shows what young children are capable of doing, if only given the opportunity! We tend to UNDERestimate what kids can do.
If only we could do this on a large scale in the U.S., and actually prepare kids for their futures while making learning fun and engaging!
This fits in nicely with my last three posts. This is a prime example of 21st Century learning. This is what our kids here in the U.S. should be doing, rather than largely ignoring science and the social sciences to put all the focus on reading and math, in order to do well on high-stakes testing for NCLB. This is multi- and interdisciplinary work, where kids learn that science, math, writing, reading, and communication are all related, and that the content being presented in school matters in the real world. This is giving them experience and practice and exposure to problem solving, critically thinking about data and observations, trial and error with experiments, trouble shooting, tinkering, collaborating, finding information with modern tools, and how one's work is presented to the world. It gives them a chance to discover things on their own, and allows them to be creative and innovative as they try to learn about and figure out a complex problem. This shows what young children are capable of doing, if only given the opportunity! We tend to UNDERestimate what kids can do.
If only we could do this on a large scale in the U.S., and actually prepare kids for their futures while making learning fun and engaging!
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Is Uncle Sam Limping? Probably, because Politicians are in charge of education and keep shooting him in the foot
Another state bites the dust. Massachusetts took the step, where its teachers agreed to tie their salaries and promotions to test scores. I do hope there are some other criteria in this, but it is the latest instance of our test-crazed society that has existed since the introduction of No Child Left Behind some ten years ago. While testing has always been, and will always continue to be, a part of education and the assessment of what students are learning, it has bothered many educators for many years that testing is the primary, and for some who have a voice in the education debate, the only, means of assessing and 'fixing' American schools. This is what we will continue to get so long as politicians, almost all of whom have never taught in the classroom and do not have expertise in education, control the education system.
I've harped on this countless times over the years, and will continue to do so, especially since Sec. of Education Arne Duncan will be working with congressional leaders as they discuss the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). One can only hope that both sides agree that changes to NCLB must be made in how a school or district is assessed, with multiple measures considered instead of the present high-stakes test each state is required to produce.
We continue to regress in education by becoming like much of the rest of the world that has used high-stakes testing to determine what students will be allowed to do. But do our politicians pay any attention to the global trends that many countries have participated in over the past decade? Do our political leaders know that many countries, including numerous Asian countries that have been ahead of us on global standardized tests (such as Singapore, China, Japan, and so on), have been slowly breaking away from a content-focused test meritocracy system to one that encourages more student freedom and skills development? I know this to be true since I participated in a discussion at Northwestern University five or six years ago with a delegation from Singapore. I spoke to them about how I approach teaching physics, and how to include hands-on, experiential learning for students, and how to connect content to student lives and develop problem-solving skills for students. It was a truly interesting meeting, and testing never came up. This delegation made it clear that they wanted their education system to look more like that of the U.S., and could not understand why the U.S. wanted to look more like Singapore's and other Asian and European traditional school systems.
Content is important; at least certain content in each discipline. One needs foundational concepts and principles in order to build up off that foundation. But just look around at what current students are going to face when they get to college and beyond. Listen to what Bill Gates and others are telling educators, as well as just about every professor I know is looking at - they want students to have some basic knowledge foundation, but also skills sets, creative problem solving capacity, being able to work both alone and collaboratively across disciplines, and strong communications skills across multiple media platforms. This package of skills forms what many are now calling '21st century skills.'
I dream of the day when my junior students in high school will not be judged on if they remember an obscure vocabulary word from a physical science class they took four years earlier (and never touched that topic again). Rather, let them be judged more on what they come up with when posed an open-ended problem on how to best modify a bridge design that needs to span a specific geological feature, or how to take experimental data and develop an empirical formula that relates several quantities together, or something, anything, that makes one think critically, problem solve, and communicate the thoughts to the reader. When will we have student portfolios count in an assessment, where we can see a variety of skills and knowledge in action, and see growth over the course of a year?
If you build an assessment that requires 21st century skills, teachers will set up their classes to develop those skills and focus on appropriate content. They will then break away from a 19th century classroom of memorize, sit still and quietly for 6 or 7 hours in rows of desks, listen to mostly lectures, and do sets of worksheets. Why are we teaching and assessing the way we were taught and assessed decades ago? If we do not change the way we do school, we are simply setting our kids and the country up for disaster when they go out and try to compete against kids from other places in the world who will be properly trained and prepared for the new workplace. And what scares me most is that we know this to be true, and are simply ignoring the eventual outcome by continuing down this same pathetic path that provides only disincentives to be creative, innovative, collaborative, technologically inclined and competent, and figuring out more complex problems that are multi-disciplinary in nature.
I've harped on this countless times over the years, and will continue to do so, especially since Sec. of Education Arne Duncan will be working with congressional leaders as they discuss the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). One can only hope that both sides agree that changes to NCLB must be made in how a school or district is assessed, with multiple measures considered instead of the present high-stakes test each state is required to produce.
We continue to regress in education by becoming like much of the rest of the world that has used high-stakes testing to determine what students will be allowed to do. But do our politicians pay any attention to the global trends that many countries have participated in over the past decade? Do our political leaders know that many countries, including numerous Asian countries that have been ahead of us on global standardized tests (such as Singapore, China, Japan, and so on), have been slowly breaking away from a content-focused test meritocracy system to one that encourages more student freedom and skills development? I know this to be true since I participated in a discussion at Northwestern University five or six years ago with a delegation from Singapore. I spoke to them about how I approach teaching physics, and how to include hands-on, experiential learning for students, and how to connect content to student lives and develop problem-solving skills for students. It was a truly interesting meeting, and testing never came up. This delegation made it clear that they wanted their education system to look more like that of the U.S., and could not understand why the U.S. wanted to look more like Singapore's and other Asian and European traditional school systems.
Content is important; at least certain content in each discipline. One needs foundational concepts and principles in order to build up off that foundation. But just look around at what current students are going to face when they get to college and beyond. Listen to what Bill Gates and others are telling educators, as well as just about every professor I know is looking at - they want students to have some basic knowledge foundation, but also skills sets, creative problem solving capacity, being able to work both alone and collaboratively across disciplines, and strong communications skills across multiple media platforms. This package of skills forms what many are now calling '21st century skills.'
I dream of the day when my junior students in high school will not be judged on if they remember an obscure vocabulary word from a physical science class they took four years earlier (and never touched that topic again). Rather, let them be judged more on what they come up with when posed an open-ended problem on how to best modify a bridge design that needs to span a specific geological feature, or how to take experimental data and develop an empirical formula that relates several quantities together, or something, anything, that makes one think critically, problem solve, and communicate the thoughts to the reader. When will we have student portfolios count in an assessment, where we can see a variety of skills and knowledge in action, and see growth over the course of a year?
If you build an assessment that requires 21st century skills, teachers will set up their classes to develop those skills and focus on appropriate content. They will then break away from a 19th century classroom of memorize, sit still and quietly for 6 or 7 hours in rows of desks, listen to mostly lectures, and do sets of worksheets. Why are we teaching and assessing the way we were taught and assessed decades ago? If we do not change the way we do school, we are simply setting our kids and the country up for disaster when they go out and try to compete against kids from other places in the world who will be properly trained and prepared for the new workplace. And what scares me most is that we know this to be true, and are simply ignoring the eventual outcome by continuing down this same pathetic path that provides only disincentives to be creative, innovative, collaborative, technologically inclined and competent, and figuring out more complex problems that are multi-disciplinary in nature.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Where do New Ideas come from?
Two terms we hear quite frequently in education are innovation and creativity. CEOs and other private sector leaders largely agree that these two 'skills' are essential for the present generation of children who are moving through the education system, as manufacturing jobs are largely gone and the economy is fast becoming one built around services and the flow of information, i.e. technical jobs that will be the thrust of job growth over the next couple decades.
But what exactly are innovation and creativity? The dictionary definition of innovation is 'the introduction of new things or methods,' while creativity is 'the ability to create meaningful new ideas, forms or methods' that are original and imaginative. So the key notion is the development of new ideas in whatever field one is working. A question naturally develops, which is where do new ideas come from? How do we begin preparing children now to be creative and innovative in the future? In the past, many would have first thought about the arts as being the training ground for creativity. Now, we realize that the development of the abilities and mindsets and skills necessary to be creative in every field of study is necessary.
Steven Johnson's new book, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, provides the argument that there are seven common themes that have led to the vast majority of great ideas throughout history. He gives numerous examples of such ideas, ranging from Darwin's development of the theory of evolution to the of the GPS system, from Google to the creation of the first mechanical computing devices centuries ago, and so on. It is an interesting read.
Here is a summary of the seven themes that lead to good ideas. Keep in mind there is certainly some degree of overlap and relationships between the themes, but overall they can be thought of as distinct concepts.
1. The Adjacent Possible: Even if you have an interest in some topic or problem, if there is not a good environment conducive to presenting the necessary pieces to solve the problem, good ideas will almost certainly not develop. You may be brilliant with some of the information (i.e. pieces of a puzzle) in your mind that is necessary to solve a problem, but if your surroundings are not able to provide the remaining pieces of information or experiences, you will endlessly search for them to no avail. If you are isolated from others who know something about your problem or issue, or if there is no means of gathering further information (which is becoming less of a problem with the advent of the Internet), or if your environment does not provide the physical infrastructure or supplies to finish building a new physical device, you will be unable to develop the Idea or solution to your problem.
2. Liquid Networks: Great ideas can develop when information is allowed to flow through a larger network. One possible network is a social network, or often and more specifically, a professional network. The focus of this is the ability to collaborate to solve problems. It turns out that there are almost no great ideas throughout history that have been developed in isolation or by an individual who did not need any help in the development of that great idea. One may think Newton or Einstein did their work in isolation, but this is not entirely true. Those two individuals come about as close as you can get to not needing a network to develop the laws of motion or relativity, but they relied on some level of feedback, reading others' work, and ultimately talking and discussing issues with close colleagues and friends.
An interesting study was done that looked at how research groups reach the coveted 'Eureka!' moment, where a new discovery is made. It turns out that these rare moments of discovery or problem solving almost never happen in the lab! Instead, the 'Aha!' are yelled out at the conference table, where members of the group are throwing ideas around and sharing results of their latest work over the past week. The person who figures it out needs to have input they have not thought about from the larger group or network, before the grand idea is formed.
3. Slow Hunch: This is the notion of wanting to solve a complex problem or answer a difficult, involved question, but needing long periods of time to find 'the idea' that allows you to solve it. This could be over a period of years. Darwin, for example, had all sorts of data and observations he mulled over for nearly twenty years; same for Johannes Kepler, and countless others. It takes percolation of ideas in one's mind before the right mix is found. Especially in the past, individuals would keep 'commonplace books' where they would write down all thoughts and experiments and notes from literature. They would review it frequently see where their thoughts have been and where they are presently. Now many people do similar things electronically, but the idea is the same. For inventors and experimentalists, the slow hunch is an analogue of tinkering. Whatever you call it, people have hunches they follow, some of which work and others that do not, but over time the right connections of ideas are made in the brain and 'the idea' forms. While it may seem like more of an 'Eureka!' moment, it was likely a slow hunch that evolved into the great idea.
4. Serendipity: This is the accidental connection. This theme stems from the many examples of artists and scientists and businesspeople who get the great idea in dreams. Thoughts and information are processed subconsciously, and the idea seems to come from 'out of the blue.' But it is something that has been thought about consciously and then develops during the stormy brain activity during REM sleep. Every so often the right synapses fire that connect the appropriate thoughts in the mind. In fact, brain studies in 2007 by Robert Thatcher show how busier, noisier brains do better on IQ tests, since the increased neural activity allow for more interactions of more synapses between neurons. If one gets lucky, the right combination of thoughts are processed during the chaos and the idea is hatched.
This notion of the accidental discovery can be accelerated and encouraged during brainstorming sessions, where ideas are being thrown around, some chaos is present, and someone puts out just the right example or bit of information that clicks, and the idea is born. There is an argument that the Internet and web surfing can encourage serendipity because it is so easy to go off on tangents during research that a new piece of data from a site you never would have guessed would be useful actually turns out to be the key to forming a solution or great idea. Taking walks and showers are other ways to encourage this, and the prime Eureka moment of Archimedes took place in the tub!
5. Error: I think of this as learning from trial and error us a powerful way to modify initial, likely incorrect, ideas or solutions, to form the correct idea or solution. As an experimentalist, I have experience with this. On paper, you think you have the perfect design to test something. You put it together, and it is a complete flop! You need to play with it, learn from any mistakes, and modify. Perhaps you need to scrap the design altogether. But that is OK, since you learned from the errors. Theorists of all disciplines must learn from errors in their predictions when in conflict with experimental data, and this is a way to develop new ideas to replace those which are flawed in the initial theoretical model.
Errors are helpful because they help eliminate some number of incorrect ideas, and allows us to explore other ideas outside of the set of those that are incorrect.
6. Exaptation: This is borrowing a mature technology or idea from, typically, a different field and putting it to use to solve a seemingly unrelated problem. Some have called Gutenberg's printing press the most significant invention of the past millennium. But he borrowed a technology from the wine producing industry of the day, which was a screw system for pressing the grapes. It turned out this inspired him to develop the model for the press, using the same screw system. In economics, mathematical modeling and functional solutions in physics inspired new economic modeling and mathematical solutions to statistical problems, to the point of there being a new subfield of econophysics. We are using natural designs in plants and animals to develop new ideas for manmade products, ranging from structures for robotics to membrane systems to aerodynamic designs.
A big part of this, in my mind, includes analogies. The use of analogies is powerful in teaching and learning, cognition, and in just about any field of study one can imagine. It is making something more familiar by using ideas or concepts from entirely different fields or contexts. I certainly agree that this theme is completely relevant to the formation of new ideas, as well as for learning about new topics.
7. Platforms: The last theme for forming good ideas is to have a foundational set of principles, concepts, ideas, thoughts, or rules and build off that foundation, or platform. Physics is one of the great examples. Classically, there is Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations. For centuries, those provided a platform to build from, and science and technology prospered. Ideas continuously develop as 'what ifs' of known problems and solutions. This led all the way to taking people to the moon. For the GPS system, it all began with Sputnik, when two engineers used the Doopler effect to pinpoint the orbital trajectory of the satellite. This one development got the military to ask them if it is possible to invert the system, and if one could use the technique for a satellite to pinpioint the location of a signal on the ground. Turned out it is, and our ballistic missile system was born. Years of playing with this technology platform developed into a 30-satellite GPS system (as well as weather satellite and radar systems).
Looking over this list, it seems fairly complete. Some are more obvious than others, but the production of good ideas is something one cannot predict. However, identifying circumstances and environments that increase the likelihood of good idea production is useful. Many of these ideas are already employed in industry, such as Google's 20% rule (all engineers must take 20% of their time and devote it to their own interests and research, where the slow hunch is encouraged), as well as in university research, where the development of multi- and inter-disciplinary research collaborations and research institutes are being formed (perhaps most famous is the Santa Fe Institute, which has a focus on complex systems analysis) and utilize several of the above themes. We can certainly implement some of these ideas into the classroom, to provide exposure and training to students about the skill sets they need when they move into college and beyond.
What is also clear is that regardless of the pattern(s) of innovation being used, these work best in open environments where ideas and information can freely flow in unregulated channels. This certainly means having an open Internet will be vital to the continuation of progress and the production of ideas that will, hopefully, benefit humankind.
But what exactly are innovation and creativity? The dictionary definition of innovation is 'the introduction of new things or methods,' while creativity is 'the ability to create meaningful new ideas, forms or methods' that are original and imaginative. So the key notion is the development of new ideas in whatever field one is working. A question naturally develops, which is where do new ideas come from? How do we begin preparing children now to be creative and innovative in the future? In the past, many would have first thought about the arts as being the training ground for creativity. Now, we realize that the development of the abilities and mindsets and skills necessary to be creative in every field of study is necessary.
Steven Johnson's new book, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, provides the argument that there are seven common themes that have led to the vast majority of great ideas throughout history. He gives numerous examples of such ideas, ranging from Darwin's development of the theory of evolution to the of the GPS system, from Google to the creation of the first mechanical computing devices centuries ago, and so on. It is an interesting read.
Here is a summary of the seven themes that lead to good ideas. Keep in mind there is certainly some degree of overlap and relationships between the themes, but overall they can be thought of as distinct concepts.
1. The Adjacent Possible: Even if you have an interest in some topic or problem, if there is not a good environment conducive to presenting the necessary pieces to solve the problem, good ideas will almost certainly not develop. You may be brilliant with some of the information (i.e. pieces of a puzzle) in your mind that is necessary to solve a problem, but if your surroundings are not able to provide the remaining pieces of information or experiences, you will endlessly search for them to no avail. If you are isolated from others who know something about your problem or issue, or if there is no means of gathering further information (which is becoming less of a problem with the advent of the Internet), or if your environment does not provide the physical infrastructure or supplies to finish building a new physical device, you will be unable to develop the Idea or solution to your problem.
2. Liquid Networks: Great ideas can develop when information is allowed to flow through a larger network. One possible network is a social network, or often and more specifically, a professional network. The focus of this is the ability to collaborate to solve problems. It turns out that there are almost no great ideas throughout history that have been developed in isolation or by an individual who did not need any help in the development of that great idea. One may think Newton or Einstein did their work in isolation, but this is not entirely true. Those two individuals come about as close as you can get to not needing a network to develop the laws of motion or relativity, but they relied on some level of feedback, reading others' work, and ultimately talking and discussing issues with close colleagues and friends.
An interesting study was done that looked at how research groups reach the coveted 'Eureka!' moment, where a new discovery is made. It turns out that these rare moments of discovery or problem solving almost never happen in the lab! Instead, the 'Aha!' are yelled out at the conference table, where members of the group are throwing ideas around and sharing results of their latest work over the past week. The person who figures it out needs to have input they have not thought about from the larger group or network, before the grand idea is formed.
3. Slow Hunch: This is the notion of wanting to solve a complex problem or answer a difficult, involved question, but needing long periods of time to find 'the idea' that allows you to solve it. This could be over a period of years. Darwin, for example, had all sorts of data and observations he mulled over for nearly twenty years; same for Johannes Kepler, and countless others. It takes percolation of ideas in one's mind before the right mix is found. Especially in the past, individuals would keep 'commonplace books' where they would write down all thoughts and experiments and notes from literature. They would review it frequently see where their thoughts have been and where they are presently. Now many people do similar things electronically, but the idea is the same. For inventors and experimentalists, the slow hunch is an analogue of tinkering. Whatever you call it, people have hunches they follow, some of which work and others that do not, but over time the right connections of ideas are made in the brain and 'the idea' forms. While it may seem like more of an 'Eureka!' moment, it was likely a slow hunch that evolved into the great idea.
4. Serendipity: This is the accidental connection. This theme stems from the many examples of artists and scientists and businesspeople who get the great idea in dreams. Thoughts and information are processed subconsciously, and the idea seems to come from 'out of the blue.' But it is something that has been thought about consciously and then develops during the stormy brain activity during REM sleep. Every so often the right synapses fire that connect the appropriate thoughts in the mind. In fact, brain studies in 2007 by Robert Thatcher show how busier, noisier brains do better on IQ tests, since the increased neural activity allow for more interactions of more synapses between neurons. If one gets lucky, the right combination of thoughts are processed during the chaos and the idea is hatched.
This notion of the accidental discovery can be accelerated and encouraged during brainstorming sessions, where ideas are being thrown around, some chaos is present, and someone puts out just the right example or bit of information that clicks, and the idea is born. There is an argument that the Internet and web surfing can encourage serendipity because it is so easy to go off on tangents during research that a new piece of data from a site you never would have guessed would be useful actually turns out to be the key to forming a solution or great idea. Taking walks and showers are other ways to encourage this, and the prime Eureka moment of Archimedes took place in the tub!
5. Error: I think of this as learning from trial and error us a powerful way to modify initial, likely incorrect, ideas or solutions, to form the correct idea or solution. As an experimentalist, I have experience with this. On paper, you think you have the perfect design to test something. You put it together, and it is a complete flop! You need to play with it, learn from any mistakes, and modify. Perhaps you need to scrap the design altogether. But that is OK, since you learned from the errors. Theorists of all disciplines must learn from errors in their predictions when in conflict with experimental data, and this is a way to develop new ideas to replace those which are flawed in the initial theoretical model.
Errors are helpful because they help eliminate some number of incorrect ideas, and allows us to explore other ideas outside of the set of those that are incorrect.
6. Exaptation: This is borrowing a mature technology or idea from, typically, a different field and putting it to use to solve a seemingly unrelated problem. Some have called Gutenberg's printing press the most significant invention of the past millennium. But he borrowed a technology from the wine producing industry of the day, which was a screw system for pressing the grapes. It turned out this inspired him to develop the model for the press, using the same screw system. In economics, mathematical modeling and functional solutions in physics inspired new economic modeling and mathematical solutions to statistical problems, to the point of there being a new subfield of econophysics. We are using natural designs in plants and animals to develop new ideas for manmade products, ranging from structures for robotics to membrane systems to aerodynamic designs.
A big part of this, in my mind, includes analogies. The use of analogies is powerful in teaching and learning, cognition, and in just about any field of study one can imagine. It is making something more familiar by using ideas or concepts from entirely different fields or contexts. I certainly agree that this theme is completely relevant to the formation of new ideas, as well as for learning about new topics.
7. Platforms: The last theme for forming good ideas is to have a foundational set of principles, concepts, ideas, thoughts, or rules and build off that foundation, or platform. Physics is one of the great examples. Classically, there is Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations. For centuries, those provided a platform to build from, and science and technology prospered. Ideas continuously develop as 'what ifs' of known problems and solutions. This led all the way to taking people to the moon. For the GPS system, it all began with Sputnik, when two engineers used the Doopler effect to pinpoint the orbital trajectory of the satellite. This one development got the military to ask them if it is possible to invert the system, and if one could use the technique for a satellite to pinpioint the location of a signal on the ground. Turned out it is, and our ballistic missile system was born. Years of playing with this technology platform developed into a 30-satellite GPS system (as well as weather satellite and radar systems).
Looking over this list, it seems fairly complete. Some are more obvious than others, but the production of good ideas is something one cannot predict. However, identifying circumstances and environments that increase the likelihood of good idea production is useful. Many of these ideas are already employed in industry, such as Google's 20% rule (all engineers must take 20% of their time and devote it to their own interests and research, where the slow hunch is encouraged), as well as in university research, where the development of multi- and inter-disciplinary research collaborations and research institutes are being formed (perhaps most famous is the Santa Fe Institute, which has a focus on complex systems analysis) and utilize several of the above themes. We can certainly implement some of these ideas into the classroom, to provide exposure and training to students about the skill sets they need when they move into college and beyond.
What is also clear is that regardless of the pattern(s) of innovation being used, these work best in open environments where ideas and information can freely flow in unregulated channels. This certainly means having an open Internet will be vital to the continuation of progress and the production of ideas that will, hopefully, benefit humankind.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Running for Woodland District 50 School Board in April Election
Well, I will be a candidate for one of the three seats for the Woodland School Board. The election is April 5, 2011. Check out my new blog dedicated to this at http://vondracekforwoodland.blogspot.com/. There will be more to come on this after the new year!
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Examples of 21st Century Education
One hears about 21st Century Education and Schools a lot as catch-phrases by politicians, parents and teachers. But how often is someone who uses this phrase able to give a good definition of what it means, or what they think it means? And, even more rare, how often is someone who uses this phrase able to give real examples of what they mean?
There is, in all fields I suspect, a phenomenon of 'great volumes of talk but of little action.' The notion of a 21st Century Education has been this sort of phenomenon in education the past few years. There is SO much talk about it, but little action. Many I have discussed this with point to getting X number of computers into a school or into a classroom, and then there is 21st century education happening since kids can then access the Internet. Well, I suppose this is part of it, but in my mind that is the beginners' definition of this phrase. But there is SO much more we must do. What about problem solving? Sure, but that has been around for a couple centuries already in schools. For 21st Century problem solving, let's add the word 'creative' to it. Then there is innovation. Then there is critical thinking, which has also been a popular education term for at least decades now.
These are common terms that are overused and poorly defined by most people who use them. What continues to be missing, though, from too many faculty meetings and conferences and workshops are real examples of what these mean, and much more importantly, what they look like, in real classrooms. To put it bluntly, I think all teachers should be asking administrators and education professors and themselves, "Give me something I can actually use!!" Well, here is a TED video that does just that. A real classroom teacher, who really gets it when it comes to what a 21st Century classroom looks like, and who gives real examples from her classes of what we can do with high school students. She is social studies and history teacher Diana Laufenberg, and it is a great example of what I think all teachers should see and think about.
If we continue to teach and run schools the way we were taught and learned prior to the late 1990s, we will continue to lose kids to the many distractions that exist in the modern world that are more exciting than the old teaching and learning paradigms, and we will continue to do a disservice to kids because we are not preparing them for their world.
Check it out.
There is, in all fields I suspect, a phenomenon of 'great volumes of talk but of little action.' The notion of a 21st Century Education has been this sort of phenomenon in education the past few years. There is SO much talk about it, but little action. Many I have discussed this with point to getting X number of computers into a school or into a classroom, and then there is 21st century education happening since kids can then access the Internet. Well, I suppose this is part of it, but in my mind that is the beginners' definition of this phrase. But there is SO much more we must do. What about problem solving? Sure, but that has been around for a couple centuries already in schools. For 21st Century problem solving, let's add the word 'creative' to it. Then there is innovation. Then there is critical thinking, which has also been a popular education term for at least decades now.
These are common terms that are overused and poorly defined by most people who use them. What continues to be missing, though, from too many faculty meetings and conferences and workshops are real examples of what these mean, and much more importantly, what they look like, in real classrooms. To put it bluntly, I think all teachers should be asking administrators and education professors and themselves, "Give me something I can actually use!!" Well, here is a TED video that does just that. A real classroom teacher, who really gets it when it comes to what a 21st Century classroom looks like, and who gives real examples from her classes of what we can do with high school students. She is social studies and history teacher Diana Laufenberg, and it is a great example of what I think all teachers should see and think about.
If we continue to teach and run schools the way we were taught and learned prior to the late 1990s, we will continue to lose kids to the many distractions that exist in the modern world that are more exciting than the old teaching and learning paradigms, and we will continue to do a disservice to kids because we are not preparing them for their world.
Check it out.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Quick Thoughts on recent politics...
So, the GOP is now planning on blocking all legislation until the Bush tax cuts are extended for all brackets. President Obama and most Democrats want to extend the cuts, except for those in the top bracket who earn $250,000 or more. Two reasons the GOP give for wanting to extend the tax breaks is to help stimulate the economy and equity/fairness. The Dems argument is that by going back to the rates under the Clinton administration will save some $700 billion off deficits in the next decade.
Now, at the same time, the GOP has blocked extending unemployment benefits to some 2 million American workers, mostly middle and lower class workers, because those benefits are not paid for...and we can't have that, since living within our means is the overriding reason voters just gave Republicans control of the House. A second important item being held up is the START Treaty with Russia, which the President, military leaders, and four former Republican Secretarys of State endorse and state is in our national security interests.
I try to have an open mind on just about everything, and I find glaring holes and contradictions in the Republican. The first problem I find is that the Bush tax cuts have never been paid for. The cuts were given in a time when Clinton and a Republican Congress were able to leave a large budget surplus, and there has never been a worry about this large loss of revenue in the federal budget. Many economists note that this has played a large role in the budget deficits during the Bush administration and, now, the Obama administration. I do not agree that we should continue to give the wealthiest Americans, who have seen incomes explode during the past ten years and even during this recession while middle class workers have seen stagnant and even slight declines in income (when adjusted for inflation) during the same period. By placing a small tax increase to an old rate (and where we had one of the healthiest economies in our history) would not only pay for short-term assistance to millions of unemployed workers, but also contribute to trimming tens of billions of dollars from yearly deficits for years to come. After all, aren't we all supposed to sacrifice (I've heard some GOP leaders mention this, too)? By the way, if tax cuts are SO essential to revive the economy, why are we in a recession? Where are all the jobs? Shouldn't the wealthiest Americans be reinvesting all those tax savings back into the economy? They should have been doing this continuously for the past decade.
Obviously, the trickle down theory doesn't always work as advertised. And now we are being held hostage because of it, where literally nothing will get done until we continue on with an unpaid gift for the wealthy while millions of families get their Christmas present of a loss of unemployment checks that, for many, is the only money keeping them afloat while they continue to look for work. By the way, it is predicted that we'll have a new record high for bonuses for our top income earners - some $140 billion in bonuses, much of that going to those who helped cause the near collapse of the global economy. At least the GOP will continue to take good care of that extra income for those who do not need it, while sticking it to those who desperately need it. Merry Christmas.
Now, at the same time, the GOP has blocked extending unemployment benefits to some 2 million American workers, mostly middle and lower class workers, because those benefits are not paid for...and we can't have that, since living within our means is the overriding reason voters just gave Republicans control of the House. A second important item being held up is the START Treaty with Russia, which the President, military leaders, and four former Republican Secretarys of State endorse and state is in our national security interests.
I try to have an open mind on just about everything, and I find glaring holes and contradictions in the Republican. The first problem I find is that the Bush tax cuts have never been paid for. The cuts were given in a time when Clinton and a Republican Congress were able to leave a large budget surplus, and there has never been a worry about this large loss of revenue in the federal budget. Many economists note that this has played a large role in the budget deficits during the Bush administration and, now, the Obama administration. I do not agree that we should continue to give the wealthiest Americans, who have seen incomes explode during the past ten years and even during this recession while middle class workers have seen stagnant and even slight declines in income (when adjusted for inflation) during the same period. By placing a small tax increase to an old rate (and where we had one of the healthiest economies in our history) would not only pay for short-term assistance to millions of unemployed workers, but also contribute to trimming tens of billions of dollars from yearly deficits for years to come. After all, aren't we all supposed to sacrifice (I've heard some GOP leaders mention this, too)? By the way, if tax cuts are SO essential to revive the economy, why are we in a recession? Where are all the jobs? Shouldn't the wealthiest Americans be reinvesting all those tax savings back into the economy? They should have been doing this continuously for the past decade.
Obviously, the trickle down theory doesn't always work as advertised. And now we are being held hostage because of it, where literally nothing will get done until we continue on with an unpaid gift for the wealthy while millions of families get their Christmas present of a loss of unemployment checks that, for many, is the only money keeping them afloat while they continue to look for work. By the way, it is predicted that we'll have a new record high for bonuses for our top income earners - some $140 billion in bonuses, much of that going to those who helped cause the near collapse of the global economy. At least the GOP will continue to take good care of that extra income for those who do not need it, while sticking it to those who desperately need it. Merry Christmas.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
One Idea of How to Teach Math in the Modern Classroom - On Computers
Conrad Wolfram has a presentation about what he feels is a weak, antiquated way of teaching math in school. Instead of all hand-written work on paper, use computers to get students thinking about everyday problems. He argues that problems are dumbed-down in school, and that real-world calculations are not done that would better engage students, as well as lead to better math skills that are necessary in today's world. Because math is done on computers in research and the workplace, this would allow students to build the knowledge, tools and skills that are relevant in today's world, rather than the knowledge, tools and skills that were necessary 50 years ago in an age of agricultural and manufacturing jobs.
Personally I think he has a good point. However, I am convinced that doing just about anything one-way is not a good idea. Variety is necessary. There is something to be said for doing things by hand to learn process and the nuts and bolts of a computation. But I do think technology can be and should be used more frequently than is presently done, as this is a student's future. Also, not everyone will likely learn more if done on a computer. Some students do in fact enjoy pencil and paper problems, and can learn a great deal with this technique. I also think that many learn, or at least gain greater insights, interest and relevance of math through applications in something like physics. I know I finally got a grip on what calculus was all about after using it in physics, and many students have told me the same thing.
I am interested in your take on this as students...what do you think?
Personally I think he has a good point. However, I am convinced that doing just about anything one-way is not a good idea. Variety is necessary. There is something to be said for doing things by hand to learn process and the nuts and bolts of a computation. But I do think technology can be and should be used more frequently than is presently done, as this is a student's future. Also, not everyone will likely learn more if done on a computer. Some students do in fact enjoy pencil and paper problems, and can learn a great deal with this technique. I also think that many learn, or at least gain greater insights, interest and relevance of math through applications in something like physics. I know I finally got a grip on what calculus was all about after using it in physics, and many students have told me the same thing.
I am interested in your take on this as students...what do you think?
Good Advice to Look for Simplicity in Complex Problems
Scientist Eric Berlow gives some good advice on how to approach complexity and complex problems. With complex systems and networks, there can be a good deal of secondary and tertiary connections that might be considered 'noise' in the system, and rather than focus on a terribly complicated network map, he checks out the key components first, such as hubs in the network or looking for the first few degrees of connectivity of key components, to simplify the map. It is a short segment of a TED talk, but I found it as something that some of my students might relate to as they get into more complex problem solving; basically making things manageable. Check it out.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Elections in Lake County - Choose Bond and Seals
As the midterm election comes up on us next week, we must make important choices at both the state and national level for Congress. It is a period where being an incumbent, and this is something that appears to be crossing party lines, is toxic, regardless of the record of certain individuals. We are seeing as emotional a period as I have witnessed in my 41 years of life, to be sure.
If you live in Illinois State Senate District 31, I would urge you to vote for Michael Bond. He has done what he promised when he ran four years ago to become the first Democrat from the district to win the seat. He is a finance expert who has good ideas to help fight the state budget crisis...I just wish he was in the leadership and had some control of the agenda, for he is the type who does not care who comes up with a good idea - a good idea is a good idea, and the time for political games is OVER. He is serious about doing what is right for the state and for the district.
For Congress, the Illinois 10th district will hopefully, and finally, go to Dan Seals. I met Dan and have talked with numerous people who know him, and I am convinced he is an honorable man, who like Michael, wants to do what is right for the state and the nation. Both men have kids the same age as mine, and they have their hearts and minds in the right place. They will do what they think is right, and have it in them to oppose the leadership if need be. Their kids' futures depend on what they will end up voting for or against, and they understand that responsibility.
Vote Michael Bond and Dan Seals!!
If you live in Illinois State Senate District 31, I would urge you to vote for Michael Bond. He has done what he promised when he ran four years ago to become the first Democrat from the district to win the seat. He is a finance expert who has good ideas to help fight the state budget crisis...I just wish he was in the leadership and had some control of the agenda, for he is the type who does not care who comes up with a good idea - a good idea is a good idea, and the time for political games is OVER. He is serious about doing what is right for the state and for the district.
For Congress, the Illinois 10th district will hopefully, and finally, go to Dan Seals. I met Dan and have talked with numerous people who know him, and I am convinced he is an honorable man, who like Michael, wants to do what is right for the state and the nation. Both men have kids the same age as mine, and they have their hearts and minds in the right place. They will do what they think is right, and have it in them to oppose the leadership if need be. Their kids' futures depend on what they will end up voting for or against, and they understand that responsibility.
Vote Michael Bond and Dan Seals!!
Saturday, October 16, 2010
A Fantastic Video About Educational Paradigm Shift
Sir Ken Robinson gave a lecture about the reasons we need an educational paradigm shift for the age of globalization, which breaks from the current system built for the industrial age. It is a wonderful animated video! Do check it out.
Keep in mind there are no solutions offered as to how to implement the new paradigm into classroom learning and teaching, but I think this is precisely the type of presentation needed for policymakers, the vast majority of whom never have taught and continue to call for 'reform' that is simply a variation on a theme of the status quo industrial model. Even Race to the Top is stuck in standardization mode, so it will also likely fail to produce any changes in achievement, just as No Child Left Behind has failed to see any real improvements in academic achievement of children. When will the politicians see the light that many educators have already seen for some time????
Thanks to Zenpundit for linking to this and making me aware of it!
Keep in mind there are no solutions offered as to how to implement the new paradigm into classroom learning and teaching, but I think this is precisely the type of presentation needed for policymakers, the vast majority of whom never have taught and continue to call for 'reform' that is simply a variation on a theme of the status quo industrial model. Even Race to the Top is stuck in standardization mode, so it will also likely fail to produce any changes in achievement, just as No Child Left Behind has failed to see any real improvements in academic achievement of children. When will the politicians see the light that many educators have already seen for some time????
Thanks to Zenpundit for linking to this and making me aware of it!
Saturday, October 09, 2010
"The Simple" Tend to be Not So Simple
What could be more basic or common in life than stepping up to a drinking fountain and taking a sip of water. A stream of water becomes a fluid projectile, and it lands on the metal surface of the fountain, splashing a bit, but nothing too extreme. At least, nothing too extreme at a first, quick glance.
I do an activity from time to time with students, as well as science teacher colleagues at some past workshops, where we reproduce the water fountain experience in an even simpler way. Simply take a large beaker full of water and pour it gently on a hard surface. When one does this and then begins to observe what happens a little more closely, they quickly realize there is more to this event. First, a smooth circular region appears around where the stream of water lands on the surface, and then at a certain radius, the water level dramatically lifts up. This is the well-known hydraulic jump. Most people have never paid attention to water from a faucet landing in their sinks at home, so this tends to be a surprise. But then, I will ask the students or colleagues to do something else. Make a list of any variables you can think of where the size and pattern you see could be changed. That is, what could the hydraulic jump depend on, and what are the variables you could select to investigate in controlled experiments to better understand this feature of fluid flow? Here is one list that developed from this simple demonstration of a hydraulic jump:
• The amount of water in the stream, or ‘jet,’ being poured out of the cup – this is the flow rate of the water;
• The height the water is poured from the cup – this determines the energy and speed at which the water hits the surface;
• The diameter of the stream coming down to the surface;
• The temperature of the water;
• The temperature of the surface;
• The material the surface is made from;
• Whether the surface is horizontal or sloped relative to the ground;
• The type of liquid being poured – one student said syrup being poured would look very different compared to water, so this would refer to viscosity;
• The strength of gravity – some students predicted the jump would look different if this experiment were performed on the Moon;
• Whether the surface is still or rotating;
• Whether the stream of water was laminar flow versus turbulent flow before hitting the surface;
• Whether the stream hit perpendicular to the surface or at another angle relative to the surface;
• The topology of the surface – differences would likely appear if there was a curve to the surface, instead of being flat;
• If there were any barriers or obstacles on the surface close to where the stream hit the surface;
• If there was more than one stream of water coming down – what would the consequences be if there were multiple, interacting hydraulic jumps?
• The size of the surface;
• If there were any horizontal vibrations of the surface;
• If there were any vertical vibrations of the surface.
Again, this long list catches even colleagues by complete surprise. After all, this is a very "simple" physical event - water pouring onto a surface. A simple pattern appears. But when one begins to really think about the phenomenon, clearly it is more complicated than one could initially imagine.
This is a wonderful way to get students to a new level of observation and thought. It is a wonderful way to get someone out of a textbook way of thinking and step into the complexities of reality. And I am a firm believer that getting students to be able to identify and accept more complexity than what is allowed for in standard textbooks at younger ages (such as in high school, if not middle school) is something we should look to be doing in education. I personally was not exposed to this way of thinking until my second year in college, and I regretted it because I realized I had been missing out on almost being forced to think more creatively about problems and analysis.
While it is vital to simplify problems by making assumptions and approximations, if for any other reason to be able to gain initial insights into the physical system and actually solve the resulting mathematics that appear in the theoretical models,
what we overlook by NOT considering the complexity include second- and third-order effects that can collect together to cause subtle differences in the system when compared to theoretical models. These higher-order effects are also regions to explore for new discoveries and insights into deeper, better models of how the world work. And beyond that, it allows students to have to think about how they could design experiments to test the effects of variables never considered in the textbook, and this usually requires the students to be innovative and creative in trying to solve such design challenges. If the students then actually try the experiments they develop on paper, they then have to troubleshoot their experiment, which inevitably does not work the first time they set it up.
Complexity is all around us, even in what we would categorize as the most "simple" systems. In an age where creativity and advanced problem solving is in decline even though such skills are some of the most important to have in this day and age, educators should not be shy about pointing out how to break-down the 'simple' to find the complex, and then allow the student to attack the complex and unknown with abandon, developing new ideas and getting their hands dirty trying out their ideas. There is A LOT to be learned by all involved in such a dynamic process!
I do an activity from time to time with students, as well as science teacher colleagues at some past workshops, where we reproduce the water fountain experience in an even simpler way. Simply take a large beaker full of water and pour it gently on a hard surface. When one does this and then begins to observe what happens a little more closely, they quickly realize there is more to this event. First, a smooth circular region appears around where the stream of water lands on the surface, and then at a certain radius, the water level dramatically lifts up. This is the well-known hydraulic jump. Most people have never paid attention to water from a faucet landing in their sinks at home, so this tends to be a surprise. But then, I will ask the students or colleagues to do something else. Make a list of any variables you can think of where the size and pattern you see could be changed. That is, what could the hydraulic jump depend on, and what are the variables you could select to investigate in controlled experiments to better understand this feature of fluid flow? Here is one list that developed from this simple demonstration of a hydraulic jump:
• The amount of water in the stream, or ‘jet,’ being poured out of the cup – this is the flow rate of the water;
• The height the water is poured from the cup – this determines the energy and speed at which the water hits the surface;
• The diameter of the stream coming down to the surface;
• The temperature of the water;
• The temperature of the surface;
• The material the surface is made from;
• Whether the surface is horizontal or sloped relative to the ground;
• The type of liquid being poured – one student said syrup being poured would look very different compared to water, so this would refer to viscosity;
• The strength of gravity – some students predicted the jump would look different if this experiment were performed on the Moon;
• Whether the surface is still or rotating;
• Whether the stream of water was laminar flow versus turbulent flow before hitting the surface;
• Whether the stream hit perpendicular to the surface or at another angle relative to the surface;
• The topology of the surface – differences would likely appear if there was a curve to the surface, instead of being flat;
• If there were any barriers or obstacles on the surface close to where the stream hit the surface;
• If there was more than one stream of water coming down – what would the consequences be if there were multiple, interacting hydraulic jumps?
• The size of the surface;
• If there were any horizontal vibrations of the surface;
• If there were any vertical vibrations of the surface.
Again, this long list catches even colleagues by complete surprise. After all, this is a very "simple" physical event - water pouring onto a surface. A simple pattern appears. But when one begins to really think about the phenomenon, clearly it is more complicated than one could initially imagine.
This is a wonderful way to get students to a new level of observation and thought. It is a wonderful way to get someone out of a textbook way of thinking and step into the complexities of reality. And I am a firm believer that getting students to be able to identify and accept more complexity than what is allowed for in standard textbooks at younger ages (such as in high school, if not middle school) is something we should look to be doing in education. I personally was not exposed to this way of thinking until my second year in college, and I regretted it because I realized I had been missing out on almost being forced to think more creatively about problems and analysis.
While it is vital to simplify problems by making assumptions and approximations, if for any other reason to be able to gain initial insights into the physical system and actually solve the resulting mathematics that appear in the theoretical models,
what we overlook by NOT considering the complexity include second- and third-order effects that can collect together to cause subtle differences in the system when compared to theoretical models. These higher-order effects are also regions to explore for new discoveries and insights into deeper, better models of how the world work. And beyond that, it allows students to have to think about how they could design experiments to test the effects of variables never considered in the textbook, and this usually requires the students to be innovative and creative in trying to solve such design challenges. If the students then actually try the experiments they develop on paper, they then have to troubleshoot their experiment, which inevitably does not work the first time they set it up.
Complexity is all around us, even in what we would categorize as the most "simple" systems. In an age where creativity and advanced problem solving is in decline even though such skills are some of the most important to have in this day and age, educators should not be shy about pointing out how to break-down the 'simple' to find the complex, and then allow the student to attack the complex and unknown with abandon, developing new ideas and getting their hands dirty trying out their ideas. There is A LOT to be learned by all involved in such a dynamic process!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)