I had an enlightening conversation with a couple of my students the other week about what their expectations of themselves and of society are when they leave high school. Whether they graduate or drop out or pursue their GED, there's usually a discussion around these matters at some point.
What I found astonishing is that our students seem to feel that society owes them so much and that society needs to take care of their needs. And though finding a job is necessary to support their own lives they are not willing to advance themselves educationally to find a better job... So they often mention that society should increase minimum wage and pay people more who work at the bottom of the social ladder...
My response...
As students, YOU have to offer SOMETHING to SOCIETY worth paying YOU for. If you have nothing meaningful or interesting or unique to offer to society, then why should they go out of their way to pay you MORE? It is the absence of social responsibility and duties to your community that create this terribly selfish and self-centered view that society needs to do these things to accommodate your personal needs when you have done very little if anything at all to develop yourself into someone worth paying more money for.
I cannot imagine how students who finish school or even earn their GED can live with this mentality that society owes them these things when they have never once seriously committed to learning something that would make them worth the higher salary. It seems that our students are more interested in their happiness at present, at the expense of their grades, than investing their time now to live with actual capacities that are worth a greater pay check. Let's not kid ourselves, some of our students would probably struggle to operate a cash register since it's really just an elaborate calculator.
Though I understand that not all students are this way, I feel that I have surrounded myself with this particular mentality in this school community. This is a very unique student population. Arguably, one of the most educationally hostile groups to teach.
I can't wait until summer... 10 more teaching days until the Regents!!
Search the Blog
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Listserv: Census Bureau in Danger because of poor science education!
I am a member of an online listserv of science teachers that often share teaching strategies and share thoughts on the direction of science education. This e-mail really struck home. I would hope that people get on their phones and letter-writing to address their ignorant Republicans to address this waste of political effort.
Republicans really are the shame of this nation. I mean, democrats aren't much to look at either, but it always seems that the worst ideas that would only regress our country even further would come from a Republican. Read the e-mail and please consider the national effects of the removal of something as valuable as the National Census.
... particularly the American Community Survey.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/
I don't now about you folks, but I use data from the Census Bureau and the ACS all the time in my classes. So, this is a concern.
And for us science educators, there is this ...
“This is a program that intrudes on people’s lives, just like the Environmental Protection Agency or the bank regulators,” said Daniel Webster, a first-term Republican congressman from Florida who sponsored the relevant legislation. (I have comments about the irony of this statement, but they are not appropriate for this list.)
“We’re spending $70 per person to fill this out. That’s just not cost effective,” he continued, “especially since in the end this is not a scientific survey. It’s a random survey.”
Ach! Another reason for MORE and BETTER science education.
At least the author of the article pointed out that its randomness is what MAKES it scientific.
It is also mandatory (such as it is), so that most of the people selected in the scientific random sampling process return their surveys without additional follow-up (at additional cost), so it is much more cost-effective than the regular census, in which EVERY person has to be counted.
Despite the deep irony deficiency evident in this congressman's statements, the greater concern is that somehow we are not getting the point across of what makes science scientific.
One colleague called this the "Baconian vestige" --- the inductive model in which we collect every scrap of evidence and then try to find a pattern that gives us an idea of causes and processes that produce this array of data. A lot of people still think that this is how all science works; and this most certainly is the folk model of science.
By contrast, the hypotheticodeductive model relies on gathering enough data to generate a hypothesis that makes predictions or produces testable questions that can lead us to a deeper understanding more quickly than waiting until every possible scrap of data is in. It is what allowed the Human Genome Project to complete the sequencing several years ahead of time.
To be scientific, of course, both must rely on known or expected naturalistic cause-and-effect relationships among the variables. And without an explanatory framework that can be tested against the natural world, we just don't have science. Of course, I am preaching to the choir here.
So, sing, Choir! Do you see the new frameworks as getting at this problem? Will the new emphasis on the process of science and the explanatory foundations solve this problem? Will your state exams reflect this emphasis, or will they still be content-based, forcing you to "cover" very specific details that produce a superficial understanding of scientific fields?
There are 2 things that my first-year university students do VERY badly (1) Scientific citation and use of scientific literature; and (2) use the process of science to locate, present, and apply appropriate resources to solving scientific problems (and, unfortunately, a lot of what they remember from high school is not what their teachers intended: for example, dominant alleles are "stronger").
And I know that only a small proportion of high school students is going to make it into my classroom (even with 1300 students a year!). And if those high-schoolers do not get into a classroom like mine, but end up Poli-Sci majors, go on to law school, and then get into Congress ---- Yikes! We get a quote like this one.
Of course, it is easier to deny science if you don't know any.
Republicans really are the shame of this nation. I mean, democrats aren't much to look at either, but it always seems that the worst ideas that would only regress our country even further would come from a Republican. Read the e-mail and please consider the national effects of the removal of something as valuable as the National Census.
... particularly the American Community Survey.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/
I don't now about you folks, but I use data from the Census Bureau and the ACS all the time in my classes. So, this is a concern.
And for us science educators, there is this ...
“This is a program that intrudes on people’s lives, just like the Environmental Protection Agency or the bank regulators,” said Daniel Webster, a first-term Republican congressman from Florida who sponsored the relevant legislation. (I have comments about the irony of this statement, but they are not appropriate for this list.)
“We’re spending $70 per person to fill this out. That’s just not cost effective,” he continued, “especially since in the end this is not a scientific survey. It’s a random survey.”
Ach! Another reason for MORE and BETTER science education.
At least the author of the article pointed out that its randomness is what MAKES it scientific.
It is also mandatory (such as it is), so that most of the people selected in the scientific random sampling process return their surveys without additional follow-up (at additional cost), so it is much more cost-effective than the regular census, in which EVERY person has to be counted.
Despite the deep irony deficiency evident in this congressman's statements, the greater concern is that somehow we are not getting the point across of what makes science scientific.
One colleague called this the "Baconian vestige" --- the inductive model in which we collect every scrap of evidence and then try to find a pattern that gives us an idea of causes and processes that produce this array of data. A lot of people still think that this is how all science works; and this most certainly is the folk model of science.
By contrast, the hypotheticodeductive model relies on gathering enough data to generate a hypothesis that makes predictions or produces testable questions that can lead us to a deeper understanding more quickly than waiting until every possible scrap of data is in. It is what allowed the Human Genome Project to complete the sequencing several years ahead of time.
To be scientific, of course, both must rely on known or expected naturalistic cause-and-effect relationships among the variables. And without an explanatory framework that can be tested against the natural world, we just don't have science. Of course, I am preaching to the choir here.
So, sing, Choir! Do you see the new frameworks as getting at this problem? Will the new emphasis on the process of science and the explanatory foundations solve this problem? Will your state exams reflect this emphasis, or will they still be content-based, forcing you to "cover" very specific details that produce a superficial understanding of scientific fields?
There are 2 things that my first-year university students do VERY badly (1) Scientific citation and use of scientific literature; and (2) use the process of science to locate, present, and apply appropriate resources to solving scientific problems (and, unfortunately, a lot of what they remember from high school is not what their teachers intended: for example, dominant alleles are "stronger").
And I know that only a small proportion of high school students is going to make it into my classroom (even with 1300 students a year!). And if those high-schoolers do not get into a classroom like mine, but end up Poli-Sci majors, go on to law school, and then get into Congress ---- Yikes! We get a quote like this one.
Of course, it is easier to deny science if you don't know any.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
NPR: Dear Photograph
NPR has an article and a slideshow of a neat website that invites people to submit photos of places and experiences that they've returned to.
You have to view the slideshow to understand. It's a really neat idea and since I'm such a huge photography person, I'm really awed by the sentimental value these photos have that have been posted.
Imagine a life altering or a life-defining experience captured in a photo. Then you return to this location to relive or reminisce. It's a nice way to mull over what you've been through through the pictures you've taken in your lifetime.
I know I'll be printing more photos in the future of recent travels. Wouldn't mind returning to these locations. :)
It's amazing how well some of these photos really match the scenery even after all the years that have passed since the photograph was taken. Sort of makes you realize that it's not really your environment that changes with any level of dramatic urgency but rather you do...
Enjoy!
You have to view the slideshow to understand. It's a really neat idea and since I'm such a huge photography person, I'm really awed by the sentimental value these photos have that have been posted.
Imagine a life altering or a life-defining experience captured in a photo. Then you return to this location to relive or reminisce. It's a nice way to mull over what you've been through through the pictures you've taken in your lifetime.
I know I'll be printing more photos in the future of recent travels. Wouldn't mind returning to these locations. :)
It's amazing how well some of these photos really match the scenery even after all the years that have passed since the photograph was taken. Sort of makes you realize that it's not really your environment that changes with any level of dramatic urgency but rather you do...
Enjoy!
Monday, May 7, 2012
BBC: Dinosaur FARTS
I thought this BBC article on farting dinosaurs was actually really amusing (in spite of the serious nature of the article itself).
Sort of brings new light to the concept of global warming but it also paints this picture of how big these dinosaurs really were...
I suppose it gives new meaning to the dutch oven since if you're a dinosaur you don't need a blanket for that effect... :)
Sort of brings new light to the concept of global warming but it also paints this picture of how big these dinosaurs really were...
I suppose it gives new meaning to the dutch oven since if you're a dinosaur you don't need a blanket for that effect... :)
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Identity and Reality
I once took a course in college called the philosophy of science. It was taught by a Welsh professor who smoked excessively and frequently paced back and forth in front of the class, often pondering the meaningless arguments of perceptions versus reality (by his own admission).
It is an interesting argument to present: what reality we live in can be logically deconstructed into categories of what things really are and what things are defined to be.
I occasionally tell my students that colors and pain are simply perceptions through association. They're creations of the mind that have no physical existence. To declare something to be a certain color only means that you've labeled it that way since you've been raised to label items of similar appearance since kindergarten. Honestly, who declared that all things that reflect light at these wavelengths shall be named different colors? Who came up with these names for colors? You have to wonder if this definition of color holds true universally or if it's purely a biologically tied definition. I would think it is more the latter, since one thing you learn about perceptions of reality, they are relative to the acute senses of the individual.
Pain, in a similar context, doesn't exist as a physical sensation, but as a neurological one. It is a consequence of our cognitive resilience to our physical and emotional interactions with everything in our lives. Pain is a consequence of our psychological ties to the physical world, the emotional world, and the social world. Sometimes, when you think of pain as simply a neurological manifestation of our life experiences, you can make it vanish as if it never existed in the first place.
What I always thought was fascinating was that we, as humans, have to acknowledge every sensation we encounter. What I mean by this is that there is no culture on this planet that ignores color. The fact that humans have this capacity to detect variations of reflected wavelengths of light makes it worth labeling. The fact that we have these emotions and feelings makes it worth labeling and identifying for future reference. We are built to sense and perceive our environment to systematically and categorically interact with these sensations and perceptions in our immediate future.
There is also this notion that who and what we are can be defined in various ways. One form of identity categorically identifies everything that physically makes you what you are. The other form of identity cannot be defined, even with the infinite variations of language. This basis of this undefined form of identity is that even under the most controlled circumstances, it is impossible to replicate the exact same conditions to create the exact same identity. This is why identical twins are of such interest for psychological study. To compare how identities diverge, simply because an entity occupies an autonomous vessel, is a testament to the irreplicable nature of identity.
I don't often write philosophical entries. But I was feeling a little philosophical - brought back some crazy memories... Ok, I need a beer.
It is an interesting argument to present: what reality we live in can be logically deconstructed into categories of what things really are and what things are defined to be.
I occasionally tell my students that colors and pain are simply perceptions through association. They're creations of the mind that have no physical existence. To declare something to be a certain color only means that you've labeled it that way since you've been raised to label items of similar appearance since kindergarten. Honestly, who declared that all things that reflect light at these wavelengths shall be named different colors? Who came up with these names for colors? You have to wonder if this definition of color holds true universally or if it's purely a biologically tied definition. I would think it is more the latter, since one thing you learn about perceptions of reality, they are relative to the acute senses of the individual.
Pain, in a similar context, doesn't exist as a physical sensation, but as a neurological one. It is a consequence of our cognitive resilience to our physical and emotional interactions with everything in our lives. Pain is a consequence of our psychological ties to the physical world, the emotional world, and the social world. Sometimes, when you think of pain as simply a neurological manifestation of our life experiences, you can make it vanish as if it never existed in the first place.
What I always thought was fascinating was that we, as humans, have to acknowledge every sensation we encounter. What I mean by this is that there is no culture on this planet that ignores color. The fact that humans have this capacity to detect variations of reflected wavelengths of light makes it worth labeling. The fact that we have these emotions and feelings makes it worth labeling and identifying for future reference. We are built to sense and perceive our environment to systematically and categorically interact with these sensations and perceptions in our immediate future.
There is also this notion that who and what we are can be defined in various ways. One form of identity categorically identifies everything that physically makes you what you are. The other form of identity cannot be defined, even with the infinite variations of language. This basis of this undefined form of identity is that even under the most controlled circumstances, it is impossible to replicate the exact same conditions to create the exact same identity. This is why identical twins are of such interest for psychological study. To compare how identities diverge, simply because an entity occupies an autonomous vessel, is a testament to the irreplicable nature of identity.
I don't often write philosophical entries. But I was feeling a little philosophical - brought back some crazy memories... Ok, I need a beer.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
CNN: Pandas.
CNN has an article about the complexities of mating pandas.
Here are a few blurbs I thought were insightful:
"It's been long known that panda females experience sexual excitement only before ovulation, in a narrow window of time that occurs once a year. The window is open only 24 to 72 hours, sometime between February and May."
"...male pandas' sperm generally improves during the winter, reaches its best quality in March and April and declines in May; sperm production abruptly ends in June. Production of the male hormone testosterone, and other male reproductive indicators, also follow that pattern."
I often raise this point with students that there are some organisms that, by no fault of their own, are going extinct because their own behavior inhibits their growth and expansion as a species. It is apparent that pandas demonstrate an inability to adapt to slow and steady changes to their environment, which is what makes growing their dwindling numbers so difficult.
Though many of the reasons for a panda's endangerment are due to prolonged, man-made causes (climate change, loss of habitat, etc.) I can't help but play the Devil's advocate and suggest if it is even worth saving these animals simply because they are cute and adorable...
I suppose the alternative would be to surrender all fossil fuels and halt all construction projects in threatening areas or to aggressively re-engineer the global climate to return back to the norms that pandas respond best to... But that opens another can of worms with the effects on other organisms (cute or not)...
I've posted a poll question as to whether people think that the panda is worth saving... This should be interesting...
Here are a few blurbs I thought were insightful:
"It's been long known that panda females experience sexual excitement only before ovulation, in a narrow window of time that occurs once a year. The window is open only 24 to 72 hours, sometime between February and May."
"...male pandas' sperm generally improves during the winter, reaches its best quality in March and April and declines in May; sperm production abruptly ends in June. Production of the male hormone testosterone, and other male reproductive indicators, also follow that pattern."
I often raise this point with students that there are some organisms that, by no fault of their own, are going extinct because their own behavior inhibits their growth and expansion as a species. It is apparent that pandas demonstrate an inability to adapt to slow and steady changes to their environment, which is what makes growing their dwindling numbers so difficult.
Though many of the reasons for a panda's endangerment are due to prolonged, man-made causes (climate change, loss of habitat, etc.) I can't help but play the Devil's advocate and suggest if it is even worth saving these animals simply because they are cute and adorable...
I suppose the alternative would be to surrender all fossil fuels and halt all construction projects in threatening areas or to aggressively re-engineer the global climate to return back to the norms that pandas respond best to... But that opens another can of worms with the effects on other organisms (cute or not)...
I've posted a poll question as to whether people think that the panda is worth saving... This should be interesting...
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
NPR: Earth's Many Moons
NPR has an article that focuses on Earth's many moons.
This is not a joke. It's an article that describes the celestial bodies that orbit the Earth. They're not man-made satellites, but they're actual asteroids that are 1-2 meters in diameter.
I thought this was interesting - since we cannot see these objects with our own eyes because they travel so quickly and there's a lack of contrast to view them in the night sky.
I'm surprised there's even an awareness to these small and speedy bodies that orbit our planet. What's even weirder are the orbital paths they take - which are probably influenced by various gravitational pulls of other bodies like our moon or the sun.
Anyway, enjoy!
This is not a joke. It's an article that describes the celestial bodies that orbit the Earth. They're not man-made satellites, but they're actual asteroids that are 1-2 meters in diameter.
I thought this was interesting - since we cannot see these objects with our own eyes because they travel so quickly and there's a lack of contrast to view them in the night sky.
I'm surprised there's even an awareness to these small and speedy bodies that orbit our planet. What's even weirder are the orbital paths they take - which are probably influenced by various gravitational pulls of other bodies like our moon or the sun.
Anyway, enjoy!
Friday, March 16, 2012
Dr. Dutch - No Sympathy
I occasionally read Professor Dutch's online rants. This particular page really hits home, especially for me and my science classes.
He has a very rational view of things which is comforting when you deal with a very irrational society. I haven't come across this particular page before but I thought it would serve as an excellent list of things for students to avoid saying in any classroom environment.
Students often tell me that I have no sympathy for their situation - that is most likely true. But regardless of whether or not I care, there is one certainty in life: the Regents exam you need to take prior to graduating from this institution also does not give a rat's ass about your life circumstances. So get over it.
I tell students that there are 4 kinds of people in this world:
He has a very rational view of things which is comforting when you deal with a very irrational society. I haven't come across this particular page before but I thought it would serve as an excellent list of things for students to avoid saying in any classroom environment.
Students often tell me that I have no sympathy for their situation - that is most likely true. But regardless of whether or not I care, there is one certainty in life: the Regents exam you need to take prior to graduating from this institution also does not give a rat's ass about your life circumstances. So get over it.
I tell students that there are 4 kinds of people in this world:
- People who complain and do nothing.
- People who complain but do everything.
- People who don't complain and still do nothing.
- People who don't complain and do everything.
It's evaluative measure like this that get students to think about what sort of person they are and how really the only reason they're held back from year to year in any given academic circumstance is because of their own behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)