A couple nights ago I gathered with some friends in the country and put my new little telescope thru it's paces. I've got a Celestron NexStar 5 inch telescope with wonderful go-to capabilities. We had a great time and saw many beautiful celestial objects.
The go-to is so decadent. I use to have to know where I wanted to look in the sky as well as what I wanted to look at. Now, with go-to, I only need to know what I want to observe. A friend with binoculars was tenacious about find the same objects. Of course she used my 'scope as a clue, but she sometimes had to really search the sky. Is that a skill that will be lost with go-to-capability? Will it matter?
My scope also tells a little information about the selected celestial objects. At the beginning of the evening I would read and paraphrase what the computer said for my friends standing around. Would you tell them that you're reading from the computer or let them continue to think think you're that knowledgeable? When does it become deception?
We had a great time with a near-first-quarter moon, M42, Mars and Saturn, lots of questions, lots of friends plus much more.
Some of my favorite questions at this star party:
1. Do I believe in aliens?
2. Can stars change over time?
3. Why did NASA secretly crash a probe onto the far side of the Moon to look for water?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
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.
Friday, February 19, 2010
It Really Is a Small World, After all
When we retired from teaching high school, Barbara and I briefly talked about moving. We've lived in the Greensboro area since the day President Nixon resigned, and have enjoyed it here, but still we talked about moving.
We could move closer or further from the many different branches of our family trees. It would be an adventure.
We decided that one of the great things about living in the same community for a long time, is you get to run into people you know. So we stayed.
Yesterday at the Science Center where I teach all manner of science to elementary school kids, I ran into two former students from the early 90's. One is now a teacher, and the other was chaperoning with her son's class. It was wonderful catching up with our stories, and that I really enjoy. Leia is a teacher of special education. Both the teacher and the mom were students in my 9th grade economics class.
That was great. Along with sharing science with the kids, I was seeing two of my former students in their roles as mom and teacher.
Then in the grocery store that afternoon, there was a former colleague and her mother shopping. Angie is now a grandmother and is being a great help to her aging mother. That was great, too.
We get to run into people we know.
We could move closer or further from the many different branches of our family trees. It would be an adventure.
We decided that one of the great things about living in the same community for a long time, is you get to run into people you know. So we stayed.
Yesterday at the Science Center where I teach all manner of science to elementary school kids, I ran into two former students from the early 90's. One is now a teacher, and the other was chaperoning with her son's class. It was wonderful catching up with our stories, and that I really enjoy. Leia is a teacher of special education. Both the teacher and the mom were students in my 9th grade economics class.
That was great. Along with sharing science with the kids, I was seeing two of my former students in their roles as mom and teacher.
Then in the grocery store that afternoon, there was a former colleague and her mother shopping. Angie is now a grandmother and is being a great help to her aging mother. That was great, too.
We get to run into people we know.
Monday, February 15, 2010
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?
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?
Saturday, February 6, 2010
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.”
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.”
Saturday, January 30, 2010
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.
#
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.
#
Sunday, January 24, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
