Posts Tagged ‘Science’

This Wednesday: Science of the Winter Olympics Webinar

Monday, February 8th, 2010

logoSounds cool! From the Learning Games Network:

As part of our Learning Games webinar series, we invite you to join us this Wednesday, Feb 10, 2010 for Olympics Science: Online Resources for the Classroom from NBC Learn.

Description: On February 12th, the torch will light over Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Join the Learning Games Network’s Alex Chisholm and special guest Norman Cohen, producer at NBC Learn, to bring the science of the Winter Olympics home to your classroom.

NBC Learn has collaborated with the National Science Foundation to create this series of video resources and lesson plans demonstrating the links between the laws of physics and the principles of chemistry, and downhill skiing, bobsledding, and other sports.

We hope you’ll join us this Wednesday, Feb 10, at 7:30pm EST to learn more about how NBC Learn can inspire students by approaching the science of sports from a new perspective.

Links:

NBC Learn: http://nbclearn.com/olympics

Lesson Plans: http://lessonopoly.org/svef/?q=node/9086

Share/Save/Bookmark

Quote for the day

Monday, March 16th, 2009

“Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a heap of stones is a house.” – Poincaré 1905

Share/Save/Bookmark

The disconnect in science education

Monday, February 23rd, 2009

Every year, Project Tomorrow administers the annual SpeakUp survey of students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Every year, we hear from U.S. students that they are fascinated by technology, love learning, and want more. Results from the over 300,000 participants in the 2008 survey should be available soon.

While we wait, let’s look at some interesting data from the science questions from 2007.

In the U.S., STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) is a hot topic these days. Pundits bemoan the lack of basic science literacy, blame American students for apathy, and predict we will be crushed by global competition. But who ever asks students what they are interested in or how best they learn?

In looking at the report, Inspiring the Next Generation of Innovators: Students, Parents and Educators Speak Up about Science Education, you immediately see the glaring inconsistencies in how students learn, what fascinates and excites them, how teachers want to teach, and what’s actually happening in classrooms. What does it mean for the future when less than 40 percent of these students see learning science as important for making informed decisions in the future? How does that square with the same students reporting that they “…are open to learning science and pursuing STEM careers—intrigued by opportunities to participate in hands-on, group-oriented, “fun” experiences, as well as by opportunities to meet with professionals and use professional-level tools.”

It’s obvious that students are experiencing a disconnect. They are interested and intrigued by science — but not in school.

  • Students report that their especially fun or interesting learning experiences using science and math have been hands-on and group-oriented.
  • Students are interested in pursuing careers in STEM fields — when they know about them.
  • When asked about the essential features of their imagined ultimate science classroom, the leading answer for students in grades K-2 and in grades 9-12 was “teachers excited about science”. Students in grades 3-5 were more interested in “fun experiments” (69 percent). Other highly essential features for students in grades 3-12 were “real tools” (standard lab and technology-based tools) and being able to do “real research,” including online research on computers.

Imagine that — students want teachers who are inspired and inspiring, who bring the classroom to life with real world tools and examples. These teachers are out there, students want and need them, but apparently are getting them too rarely.

This disconnect is reflected in the teacher responses as well.

  • Just 25% of teachers say they’re using inquiry-based methods with their students; methods that both educators and researchers argue are essential for the development of scientific literacy.
  • Only 16 percent of teachers reported they are assigning projects that help students develop problem-solving skills.
  • Teachers report that 21st century tools and projects would help — but lack the time and funding to implement them, and feel constrained by mandated curriculum.

But the biggest disconnect is that most K-12 school administrators don’t see this problem. Here’s the percentage of each category that gave a passing grade to their school for preparing students for jobs of the future.

K-12 Administrators: 57%
Teachers: 47%
Parents: 47%
Students: 23%

This perception gap is a crucial indicator that we are not only failing our students in providing the relevant, inquiry-based, hands-on science education they hunger for, but that we are fooling ourselves about it. What’s worse?

Full report (PDF)

Sylvia

Share/Save/Bookmark

Free NASA opportunity for California math/science teachers

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

NASA Ames Education and the Lewis Center for Educational Research, is conducting a special workshop for up to 25 science and math teachers from local schools February 26 – 28, 2009 at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.

This 3-day training program provides teachers with all the necessary tools to remotely access and control the Lewis Center’s, 34 meter, Goldstone Apple Valley Radio Telescope (GAVRT) from their classrooms. The GAVRT program involves American students throughout the world in real science using a hands-on, standard-based curriculum that helps middle and high
schoolers reach for the stars. Students participating in the GAVRT program will assist NASA by monitoring the progress of the LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) during its mission to the moon in 2009.

The GAVRT training is normally $600 per teacher. However, due to a unique LCROSS scholarship opportunity, this workshop is currently FREE to 25 teachers! And, these 32 hours of professional development are recognized for state, district, and NCLB requirements. If you are teaching science or math in your classroom, you are qualified to apply for this unique program.

The training will include a special NASA Ames tour at that is not normally open to the public. Andrew Chakin, world-renown author of Man on the Moon – the basis of Tom Hanks’ miniseries From the Earth to the Moon will meet with the teachers to share his experience inspiring students.

For more information about the LCROSS Mission and the Lewis Center and GAVRT program visit : http://www.lewiscenter.org/gavrt and http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/

Applications are now being accepted for this exciting program. To enroll, immediately contact: Barbara Patterson at NASA Ames Research Center: barbara.e.patterson [at] nasa.gov 650-604-0494

Share/Save/Bookmark

Constructing Modern Math/Science Knowledge 2009

Monday, December 1st, 2008

Ever question why technology seems to have gone missing in so many math and science classrooms? What happened to the “compute” in computing? Wondering what STEM really looks like?

Yes, technology, math, and science can be friends!

Constructing Modern Knowledge is organizing a one-of-a-kind educational event for January 22, 2009 at Philadelphia’s Science Leadership Academy. Constructing Modern Math/Science Knowledge is a minds-on institute for K-12 teachers, administrators and technology coordinators looking for practical and inspirational ways to use computers to enhance S.T.E.M. learning. Constructing Modern Math/Science Knowledge is a pre-conference event for Educon 2.1, an innovative conference and conversation about the future of education.

The presenters represent high-tech pioneers and seasoned veterans at the forefront of innovation in math, science and computing. Read more about them here.

Come to Constructing Modern Math/Science Knowledge and stay for Educon 2.1!

  • Early-bird registration (before December 15) – $100
  • Regular registration – $130

You may register for both Constructing Modern Math/Science Knowledge and Educon 2.1 with one click.

Sylvia

Share/Save/Bookmark

Physics Simulations Online

Monday, November 10th, 2008

Passed on from Michael Steinberg of New York City – PhET Physics Education Technology – a terrific website full of fun, interactive simulations of physical phenomena. There are simulations for biology, physics, chemistry, math, electronics and more.

There are lessons and workshops for teachers, research support and lots of support materials.

The simulations can be run online or downloaded and run offline, and there is even an option to easily download all the simulations in one package.

These simulations look terrific and have easy to use controls and help integrated into each one. Unlike some interactive simulations, these have measurement tools built in so they can be used to support real science learning. Many of them have also been translated into many languages, and are open source so they can be modified if you want.

Check it out!

Sylvia

Share/Save/Bookmark

More on Flunking Spore…

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

Last week I blogged (Flunking Spore – video game failed by scientists) about Science magazine’s Oct 24 review of the new video game Spore that outlined the problems of looking at the game as a way to learn biology. Not only did multiple scientists give the game poor grades for science content, but a documentary promoting the game misleadingly used interviews with scientists that implied endorsement.

Now, Eric Klopfer and Kurt Squire, co-founders of the Learning Games Network, respected researchers and proponents of games in education, respond to “Flunking Spore.” In two articles (part 1, part 2), they tackle some of the objections, and provide a their point of view. While they agree that the basic science in Spore is not appropriate as a substitute for biology curriculum, they defend the game as a breakthrough in user interface and design.

Kurt Squire argues that Spore is easily recognizable to a veteran game player for what it is, a game of design, where the player is the master of a make-believe universe.

What I think gets lost here is that players actually have relatively sophisticated ways of interpreting games like Spore. While I share the author’s concerns about games reinforcing people’s naive conceptions about science, Spore, I would argue, is so clearly a design game that most “literate” gamers quickly see that it’s a design game, and regard it as such.

OK, I agree here. But most people who aren’t veteran game players won’t see this subtle point. We know that people learn a lot from games, but we don’t quite know what to call it. It’s not learning that can be described in the traditional vocabulary of school. This is a deep problem of games&learning not being equivalent to games&schooling. Spore wasn’t going to bridge that gap even if it was as educationally significant as advertised.

The problem I have is simpler than this.

The game is being promoted, mostly by National Geographic, as a game that teaches biology. Scientists were tricked into doing interviews that were used to promote the game as a way to learn biology. Shame on National Geographic for exploiting interest in games for learning to promote their programming.

As much as I understand the inclination to find the tiny nugget of learning in any game, I hope that Eric Klopfer and Kurt Squire would use their influence in the learning game community to address the issues of the misleading and patently false promotion of this game. Part 3, perhaps?

Sylvia

Subscribe to the Generation YES Blog

Share/Save/Bookmark

Flunking Spore – video game failed by scientists

Sunday, October 26th, 2008

The potential of video games for learning has been the subject of much recent curiosity and debate. How many times have you heard…“If only we could combine the engagement of video games with real (meaning school) learning…”

Spore is a new game that is being promoted as just such a hybrid. It’s the latest brainchild of Will Wright, the world-famous designer of unusual, yet popular games like The Sims and Sim City.

If anyone could design a breakout game that combines learning and fun, Will Wright is the guy.

Spore is a game where you create a single-cell organism that evolves. Keeping your creature alive and growing is the goal, and you can design and improve your creatures as generations go by and gain sophistication. Eventually they gain intelligence, and you have to deal with tribes and civilizations, deciding on war and peace, and eventually going out into outer space to explore and/or conquer whole worlds.

In an interview with National Geographic, Will Wright talks about, “…the breakthrough science that’s revealing the secret genetic machinery that shapes all life in the game Spore.” National Geographic has made a documentary, called “How to Build a Better Being” that is being sold by Spore publisher Electronic Arts in a deluxe version. (National Geographic website promoting the game.) The documentary positions Spore as solid science, complete with supporting interviews with scientists.

Now the bad news..
This month’s Science magazine (the peer-reviewed journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) decided to put this to the test. In Flunking Spore, author and “Gonzo Scientist” John Bohannon played Spore with evolutionary biologists, and concludes,

“…the problem isn’t just that Spore dumbs down the science or gets a few things wrong–it’s meant to be a game, after all–but rather, it gets most of biology badly, needlessly, and often bizarrely wrong.”

Anyone interested in games and education needs to read this article. It’s a wake-up call about this game’s relevance to education, and parallels much of the wishful thinking that dominates the games and education discussion.

And worse, when Bohannon went to interview the scientists who appeared in the National Geographic video, he found that they had not been told that their interviews were going to be used to promote a video game. He quotes Neil Shubin, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois who worries that science has been hijacked to promote a product. “I was used,” says Shubin.

After playing the game, the scientists Bohannon interviewed gave Spore failing grades across the board.

“Spore’s biology grades rolled in like a slow-motion train wreck. For organismic biology–genetics, cell biology, reproduction, and development–Gregory and Eldredge smacked Spore with a D-. The game flunked evolutionary biology outright with an F. According to Gregory and Eldredge, “Spore has very little to do with real biology.”

And it’s interesting to me that in a TED talk from March 2007, Will Wright demos Spore and makes no such claims. Who decided to push this as a game where you could learn about evolution and biology?

Screenshot from SporeOK, so perhaps Spore isn’t going to change the way biology is taught in school, but does that mean that someday, someone, isn’t going to design a game that does? Trying to keep an open mind and never say never is always good policy, but when Will Wright fails, and the promotion is based on sleight-of-hand, if not blatant lies, it’s discouraging.

Why is it so hard to design video games that teach school subjects? That’s a longer discussion, and one I’ve tackled in other places.

On Monday, my presentation for the online conference K12online 2008, Games and Education will go live and there is some discussion of the problem there. I’ll update this post with that link when it’s available.

Update - K120nline2008 Games in Education is online!

Sylvia

Share/Save/Bookmark