Where do we learn?

Last week a tragedy happened. A young college student was recorded without his consent and the activity was broadcast on the Internet, to his embarrassment.

The young college student then committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge.

Where do our young people learn such outrageous behavior and why do they think it's OK to blindside and embarrass others?

Above is a still image from a current TV ad in which one person records a video of another doing something potentially embarrassing. The video gets posted to the Internet.

Dr. Doolittle

I've been working at the Natural Science Center of Greensboro for almost six years, now. It's been a great experience, and I really enjoy working with the animals.

Many times I'll talk to the animals, as if they can understand what I'm saying. They may be able to pick up the tone of my voice, but I still say nice words to them.

Launa, one of our newer birds, has not been used in any of my programs yet. She's a nice little bird, and I not only talk to her, but I sing. Sometimes Launa talks back and sings with me. She'll often sit on my hand and nibble on my watch.

Archeology in South Africa

From the top:

Fossils and finds from the site arranged in the work house at the Cradle of Humankind in South Africa.

Barbara on the catwalk over the dig.

Entrance to one of the recent digs at the site.

One of the on-site archeologists (can anyone help me discover his name?) explains the important work being done in South Africa. Our visit was for the Transit of Venus in 2004.

Do you believe in scientific evidence?

The importance of the meanings of words, and understanding of the shades of meanings of words is a theme in my reading lately. What is “science”? What do scientists mean by “knowledge”? What are good “models”? How do “theories” help us understand the physical world around us? (174)

One word I think is an important word for scientists to keep in mind is “belief.” I recently read a paper on science education, and the authors use the word in their introduction, and then hint at it later in the chapter. How do our students “come to understand …‘why we believe’ scientific evidence.”

Should scientists and science teachers use the word “belief”? Is there a better, more accurate word to use that can help avoid misunderstandings?

I tend to use the words “belief” and “believe” in spiritual and religious contexts. These words seem to me to be about an opinion, leading to a conclusion that may not have convincing supporting evidence. Of course, an extreme skeptic may never find enough convincing evidence, but a healthy skepticism can be addressed, I believe, with satisfactory observations and reasoning to reach conclusion.

I may not be able to share enough evidence to convince a skeptic of the existence (or non-existence) of God, but the evidence supporting a geocentric model of our solar system appears conclusive.

Does use of the word “belief” in a science context make understanding science more difficult? When the authors write “why we believe scientific evidence” are we shortchanging the scientific basis of our models and maybe even doing religious beliefs a disservice? I think so.

So what can we do? What should we do?

Even though they are only words, and different shades of meaning can be compounded by context, I think we can use a more accurate word than “belief” and I encourage my astronomy students to consider using this other word in scientific context.

I “think” the Earth is spherical. Biologists “think” evolution best describes the changes seen over time. Geologists “think” plate tectonics have been shaping the surface of our Earth.

I try to use the word “think” in my classroom and in scientific discussions. Sure, I backslide and use the “b” word every now and then, but when I use “think” in class, I think my students understand the important difference in meaning.

#

Making a Comet in Class

Thursday in astronomy class we made a "comet" using dry ice, water, sand, cola and glass cleaner.

Unbeknownst to me one of my students made a video of the experience and put it on YouTube at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1veYdeDxdJE

If I'd known, I would have had the photographer closer with his camera and microphone.

Sceintific Inquiry and Nature of Science in my classroom

If Nature of Science (NOS) and Scientific Inquiry were systematically integrated into curricula and taught explicitly in my classroom...

Goals might be:
1. To improve scientific literacy of students
2. Help students discover the value in using scientific inquiry to construct their own knowledge
3. Create opportunities for students to develop positive attitudes toward science
4. Improve the students’ views of the scientific endeavor
5. Improve the learners’ views of NOS
6. Lead students to value the importance of learning about NOS
7. Students understand the source and limits of scientific knowledge

Overall:
1. I would cover fewer concept topics and plan for more discussions about NOS and Scientific Inquiry .
2. I would be explicit in our class expectations of student understandings of NOS and Scientific Inquiry.
3. I would communicate to students the importance of learning about NOS by assessing it after instruction.
4. I would strive to be flexible and not distort these guides into a fixed set of sequences and steps to follow each and every situation.

In class I would:
1. Have students complete a lab or activity first
2. Lead students in reflection on what they did procedurally, why they did it, and what implications this has
a. Discuss the distinction between observation and inference,
b. Discuss the difference between scientific laws and theories,
c. Consider how imagination and creativity were important,
d. Note examples of the tentative nature of scientific knowledge,
e. Be aware of cultural and societal influences on science and scientists,
f. Consider the credibility of several explanations,
g. Remember that scientific knowledge is never absolute.
3. Remind students that the completed activity, while not exactly “real world” science, it’s a reasonable facsimile.

Shouldn’t we consider NOS and Scientific Inquiry important in both domains, cognitive and affective? Will the improved scientific literacy of our students make a difference if the students only receive them, but do not incorporate them as part of their characterization of themselves as students of science?

For example, it's been pointed out that the “arguments against the validity of evolution” include the challenge of testing. Scientific testing seems to be a very cognitive activity. Perhaps those anti-evolution arguments are more in the affective domain?

In the British periodical “Philosophy Now” there is a regular article called “Dear Socrates” in which a modern day writer responds to a question speaking as Socrates. In the September/October 2009 issue, “Socrates” writes that

"it is not so much our being related to animals that so riles the religionists as that this relation infringes on our presumed prerogative to use them [animals] as we will. The former “insults” us as being “mere” animals but the latter inconveniences us which is even more intolerable!"

To me, “Socrates’s” view of the anti-evolution argument is based more in the affective domain rather than in the cognitive. Could much of the anti-evolution, anti-science movement be based in the affective domain?

Helping students hold “positive views” of science means much more than having students parrot back the reasons science is right. Do we want students to act consistently according to NOS values they have internalized?

Is Experience the best teacher?

I've heard it said that "Experience is the best teacher" but maybe not. Maybe there's a better way to learn science. A classmate called for the adoption of a sexy new catchphrase for this different approach to teaching known as Scientific Inquiry. I agree, we ought to consider a ”cool slogan” that can be used to encompass the philosophy of Inquiry. Let’s look for a slogan that reflects the mystery of science but is broad enough to include the many facets of Scientific Inquiry.

Among other failures, it appears that we are not encouraging students to address their preconceptions nor are we nurturing the habit of thinking about thinking. My astronomy students just finished the “Reason for the Seasons” lab in which they first gave voice to their preconceptions, used measurements and reasoning to analyze the observations, and then revisited possible misconceptions.

Surprisingly, a significant number of my students accurately measured the apparent size of the Sun, organized the data, drew a graphic representation of the Earth’s orbit and still insisted that the Earth is closer to the Sun in the summer. We’ll need a slogan that embraces this reluctance to see the obvious.

Some of my students also wanted to know if their written descriptions of the observations were “right or wrong.” It appears that even in a university introductory astronomy course, we need to consider the pacing of student development of ideas about scientific knowledge. Let’s look for a slogan that reflects this experimental nature of science that’s so difficult for students to comprehend.

In TV shows such as CSI and MythBusters we see forensic experts and scientists solve mysteries using their qualitative understanding of nature. But not all of us are trying to solve mysteries. Many are just trying to survive day-to-day. Do members of the public really need a “qualitative understanding” of every concept? Maybe just knowing the right answers, the facts, the “quantitative relation” of scientific concepts, is enough for some people. Let’s find a slogan that embodies the mystery while acknowledging the mundane.

Students tend to think the purpose of controlled science experiments is to look for evidence that is consistent with their prior beliefs. While I’m not sure that’s a universally bad thing to do, we don’t really need to look far to find that same weakness in the practicing scientific community. Practicing scientists are also human too, and have all the strengths and weaknesses of that condition. We need a slogan that encapsulates this human tendency to see what we want to see.

Scientific Inquiry helps learners develop skills in collecting and analyzing evidence. It also encourages learners to address preconceptions. In addition, Scientific Inquiry guides the learners in think about thinking. A catchy slogan we might want to consider should probably address this multifaceted nature of Scientific Inquiry.

There are many ways to design a science course. Some teachers will need time and encouragement to learn more about Scientific Inquiry and think about science using this different approach.

Many children and adults assume that things are the way they appear and “science is about questioning the obvious.” Maybe we can get our slogan from a modern day version of a 19th century CSI. For Scientific Inquiry’s slogan I propose this phrase from the 2009 film “Sherlock Holmes” with Robert Downy Jr.:

“There’s nothing more elusive than an obvious fact.”

Science as Story Telling

“Knowledge is an island in a sea of mystery.”
from "Skeptics and True Believers" (1998) by Chet Raymo

This week I was reminded of Chet Raymo’s description of scientific knowledge as an island that we “dike and fill.” But occasionally that island is overwhelmed by a tidal wave of a new paradigm, and then we begin rebuilding.

As a student of history, I appreciate the changes and evolution that many of our mental models and scientific models have gone through. Changing mental models is what some of my astronomy students do in a lab called “The Checkerboard Universe.”

Students begin by writing a paragraph about their understanding of how scientists develop hypotheses, test them and come up with theories. Then they take turns determining specific rules about different patterns of the checkers on the board. After using their checkerboards, students reread their first paragraphs and then write another about their new or confirmed perspective of the role of the scientists.

Here are a couple of student comments from just this week:
• “I learned that you may not even have a question when you begin an experiment, but then you may stumble upon a question once an experiment has begun.”
• “When scientists fail they actually come closer to the answer.”

Our changing view of the universe is one reason I enjoy reading science writers such as Raymo, Sagan and Ferris. I think they give us science arguments in exciting, wondrous story forms.

Barbara, a professor of logic and philosophy, teaches that an argument is a group of propositions one of which is allegedly proven true by the others. I think this is what interesting science writers, these storytellers do. They describe the technological developments and the paradigm shifts. They describe our changing view of the universe around us. Maybe we should all think about becoming better “story tellers” of science.

#

How do we know the Earth’s axis is tilted 23.5 degrees?

This is a question one of my astronomy students asked last week. That’s a perfectly good question, and I want to answer it using a different style than the one I’m use to.

Imagine you have observed that on one particular day the sun at its highest point in the sky (local noon) is actually low above the southern horizon. Some days later, you notice that the noon-sun is higher, 23.5 degrees higher in the sky than it was for your first observation. Again, days pass and you notice at noon that the sun is even higher than before, another 23.5 degrees higher!

What is making this happen? Why is the sun changing its position in our sky?

Some ideas might be mystical: maybe angels and demons are fighting over the sun, holding their own celestial rugby match.

Some ideas might be more material: maybe the Earth is wildly wobbling on its axis.

A radical idea may be that the Earth is tilted: maybe our rotational axis is not exactly perpendicular to the orbital plane of the earth around the sun.

Is there a test we can conduct to see if the Earth may be wildly wobbling on its axis? Since we’re studying celestial objects oft times we must wait for the universe to do the testing for us and we just observe. Over time we notice that the changes in the position of the sun in our sky happen slowly and consistently.

Around December 21, the noon-sun is the lowest that it’s going to get. Just 3 months later, around March 21, the noon-sun position is 23.5 degrees higher than it was in December. Another 3 months (June 21) and the noon-sun is another 23.5 degrees higher. Again, another 3 months and the noon-sun has returned to it’s mid-position. And then it repeats, over and over.

Researching astronomical records you find the same pattern described far into recorded history. Would these observations rule-out the hypothesis that the Earth is wildly wobbling? The regularity of year after year, century after century, would seem to tell us the movement is not wild.

You start noticing other aspects of the sky, both during the days and the nights. You may notice that the star called Polaris stays pretty much in the same spot of the sky, night after night, year after year. If you travel to the North Pole you may find that on June 21, the noon-sun stays 23.5 degrees above the horizon all day. Another 3 months later and the noon-Sun barely brightens the horizon. Then the North Pole sky is dark for 6 months, but eventually, on March 21, the sun begins to reappear.

Would those observations lead the discerning observer to the conclusion that the Earth’s axis is tilted 23.5 degrees? We didn’t disprove the angelic rugby match!

I’m reading Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science, edited by L. B. Flick and N. G. Lederman, and I’m exploring this way of thinking about astronomy.

School Has Begun

The new semester at High Point University has begun, and I'm returning to teach a couple introductory courses in astronomy. I enjoy teaching there, and it affords me the opportunity to continue spreading the good news about astronomy.

On the first day of class I have the students pair off and interview one another. One question they consider is what they want to learn about astronomy during our time together.

Most of my students are second semester non-science-major freshmen. Some take the class just to earn a lab credit or a science credit. Very few have any background experience in astronomy.

Here's the breakdown of responses in my Tuesday class:
want to learn about stars: 6 responses
want to learn constellations: 4 responses
want to learn about planets: 2 responses
want to learn about the universe: 1 response
want to learn about black holes: 1 response
want to learn about astrology: 1 response
want to learn about 2012 and the end of the world: 1 response

Several responses were very general interest in science or astronomy, and some did not address this question at all.

The request to learn about 2012 actually spurred one other student into a recount of her research and her conclusion that the whole "end of the world" hype is just "stupid."