from philipmartin.info

I began teaching a new graduate class last Thursday and have been remiss to post about the experience.  I will be using this blog as a reflective medium after class, open to my students, so we can communicate about teaching and learning.  I continue to consider this blog an important Web 2.0 tool to allow asnchronous discussion, discourse, and learning to take place.

I spent time talking about my view of the so-called “scientific method,” a philosophy, I feel is riddled with fallacies about the way science is actually done.  Below is a sample that I have written regarding it and applications in the science classroom in terms of problem finding.  I think it illustrates my disdain:

An underlying problem with the Osborne-Parnes and Firestien and Treffinger creative problem solving models is the assumed linearity. Although Firestien and Treffinger do not support linearity of their model, it has previously been presented that way, and the flexibility of the model is therefore often obscured in classroom application. In fact only recently has an alternative more open model been presented (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 2005). Similar to the so-called scientific method taught irresponsibly in many science classrooms, these models purport a starting and endpoint with a clear step-by-step progression. However, the idiosyncratic nature of science and creativity suggest that such a methodology might only serve the misplaced pedagogical needs of a teacher, and not be truly representative of the actual asynchronous routes that individuals traverse during the problem finding process.

I think, as thoughtful educators we need to consider entry points to learning and how we can develop many aspects of student strategies to (a) problem finding (i.e., creative thinking) and (b) problem solving (i.e., logical/analytical thinking).  When we are more open to varied and diverse thinking strategies, we provide our students with better learning opportunities.

um4fdqsai5

This past week, I have had the pleasure of staying on a 52,000-tree orange farm in the state of Sao Paulo in Brazil.  The farm is quite isolated, and has no means of communication with the “outside world.”  In fact, a 14-km dirt road car ride was necessary to get to the farm’s property.  The orange tree farm is surrounded by other farms, primarily that of sugar cane.  Each day I take my daughters for a hike around the farm and onto adjacent properties for some exercise and to appreciate the wonderful environment we are privileged to be in.

Today’s hike took us to a “reservoir”- three large terraced ponds connected by underground pipes. The reservoir is surrounded by a barbed-wire fence.  After crawling under the fence, we found that the top pond was connected to the second pond by a 4î PVC pipe running as a slough into a waterwheel that has some sort of turbine attached to it.  I asked the girls what they thought was happening and we discussed how the wheel worked.  We weren’t exactly sure that it was powering, but the girls made a few guesses.

Afterwards, we headed to a field of sugar cane and the girls asked if they could taste it.  I cut a stalk and cut off the outer husks to expose the cane.  They enjoyed sucking on the heart of the cane, and my older daughter Anna commented that it tasted like a lollipop, only that it was made by nature.   We meandered back to the villa we were staying in and they reiterated their adventures to my wife as I snuggled into a hammock for a rest.

While we were returning, I began thinking about some of the results of my research which suggests that students that are great, independent, self-directed student inquirers come from environments where parents nurture and promote the creative mind by offering their children unique opportunities to engage in varied different experiences throughout their young lives.  I have often heard others talk about problem finding and offer that, in fact, problem finding is not owned by the child but rather the parent.  As the subjects in my study demonstrated, parents need almost be absent during problem finding, but rather provide the culture that promotes the childís independence.

After all, perhaps one of the greatest gifts we can give our children is the sense of wonder in the natural world ñ one that they want to explore and learn about through direct experience and inquiry.

NOTE:  I FOUND THIS POST BURIED IN “DRAFT” FORM, NEVER PUBLISHED.  HERE IT IS . . .

The continued impact of Web 2.0 “the read-write web” continues to have a profound impact on instructional practices. I have commented about how educators need to reconfigure their teaching approaches and decided to try a new (for me) strategy at a recent presentation I did.  I was presenting some of my research about categorizing science fair projects based on the nature of the data and outcome.  This was a combined session platform presentation – basically a lecture to an audience.  In this format, the audience is expected to be passive in learning style.  They listen, consider, and at the end, after the presenter has finished, perhaps ask a few questions.

When considering the nature of socially constructing knowledge, this is probably not a great learning strategy.  Individuals need to interact, think, and assimilate ideas.  But how can this be done in a traditional format, where I am expected to be a “sage-on-the-stage” instead of a “guide-on-the-side”?

One possible solution, which I’ve heard about, but never tried:  creating a backchannel.  In essence, a backchannel is a chat room that exists while the presentation is progressing.  Participants can comment, interact with one another, form opinions, and ideas, without interrupting the presentation.  I downloaded a freeware version of a chat room to my website and put it in a subdomain.  The chat can be found at http://chat.labanca.net.

Since this was a trial for me, I haven’t worked out all of the software kinks yet.  For example, I don’t have a nice skin on the chatroom yet. I’m not sure how to archive the chat so I can actually read the content after the presentation.  (I realized this when I went back and found the discussion missing, and just the later portion was present.

During the second session given by one of my esteemed colleagues Dr. Lori Kolbusz, I suggested we continue to backchannel and actually was a participating member of the chat.  Here’s a small sample of the discussion based on Lori’s qualitative research:

02/05/2009 07:46:39 ‹guest385› All,  I can’t get over how often social learning theory (Vygotsky, Situated Cogntion) really seems to embed so much good research

02/05/2009 07:47:53 ‹guest276› I am sure Vygotsky was cited in all of the past dissertations at WCSU. What a wealth of knowledge!

02/05/2009 07:48:27 ‹guest89› Vygotsky’s Proximal Zone of Development is something that I can really relate to!

02/05/2009 07:49:22 ‹guest385› The 24-hour cable news cycle doesn’t help the cause of these aberrant events which become the perception of education as a whole

02/05/2009 07:49:55 ‹guest276› I am sure we all agree that no matter whatever district you are in, clear expectations need to be established.

02/05/2009 07:50:01 ‹guest276› and consistency

02/05/2009 07:53:43 * guest15 joins My room

02/05/2009 07:55:30 ‹guest89› It is interesting to note that Vygotsky’s research was conducted in  the Stalinistic Era; I am interested in finding out how he kept a lot of his work outside the scope of a totalitarian set of controls – largely through state-mandated regimentation of universities.

02/05/2009 07:55:46 ‹guest385› This is a great sample size for a qualitative study (survey=30); (SSinterviews=10)

02/05/2009 07:57:58 ‹guest89› Agree with you, guest 385.  Lorraine mentioned a relevant term; the geberation of “thick data.”

02/05/2009 07:59:41 ‹guest276› With a larger sample size, emergent themes are more likely to arise. I wonder how many she asked before arriving at n=30.

02/05/2009 08:00:10 ‹guest385› It might be possible that she achieved data saturation – would be a good question

02/05/2009 08:01:29 ‹guest15› A little Glasser training would help

02/05/2009 08:02:35 ‹guest276› To be perfectly honest, I don’t think this school district can afford Glasser. What can they do now?

02/05/2009 08:06:10 ‹guest276› 22 paired responses is a pretty good number. Analyzing qual data takes a lot of time. I am thinking of what was analyzed for this study with the 4 RQ’s.

What meaningful comments!  This certainly allows for a more active role for the participants.  When educators talk about 1-to-1 laptop initiatives, they need to think about this type of reconfiguring, not the “extract the data from the Internet as a consumer” or “type my reports using Word” mentalities.  This is a way to use technology to allow learning that can’t take place without.  Our students are already doing it anyway.  I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen students texting.  Why not make it more mainstream – and have a way for the teacher to get feedback?

A bit more sophisticated than passing notes under the table!

from: www.bath.ac.uk

My good friend and colleague, Krista Ritchie, recently defended her dissertation at McGill University.  I was able to attend via distance using Skype.  During her defense, I had the opportunty to hear about her research on problem finding.  She conducted her study longitudinally, observing students over the course of a year from various Connecticut high school science sites.  Each site she studied had students in a “traditional” course (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics) and an applied science research course. Both the traditional and research courses were taught by the same teacher at each site.

As she was presenting her data, one thing stood out to me as a practitioner.  She discussed the negative responses often associated with problem finding: anxiety, nervousness, fear.  These responses, she discussed, were often not found in the traditional science education classes, yet were prevalent in the applied research class.  This immediately got me thinking.

Of course, the proximate interpretation is for an applied science teacher to know that there is anxiety assocaited with the problem finding phase of research, and he or she should do whatever is in his or her power to support the students.  Yet, I wonder – what is the necessity of the anxiety to push the student forward to facing and conquering the challenges associated with creative problem finding?

For more of a holistic view of the educational enterprise, I am thinking more about the place of problem finding within educational structures.  While I am an advocate of problem finding, I am not so Pollyanna as to realize that creative behaviors like problem finding are often stifled and supressed in education.  As much as teachers say they want their students to be creative producers – so many really don’t.  I can hear the voices now . . . “Just do what I say.”    Or from the students, “Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.”  There is TOO much culture of lock-step-do-as-the-teacher-says-and-don’t-push-the-creative-envelope culture prevalent in education.  I don’t even claim this to be a one-way street.  Teachers and students just want to do as told:  solve/teach well-known questions that have well-known answers.  I am often disgruntled about how few teachers and students are willing to take a risk and work with ill-defined problems.  I think that’s where really powerful learning takes place. My challenge as an instructional leader is to bring more students, parents, teachers, administrators – all the constituents – to this place.

A place where we transcend the logical and analytical processes of problem solving and challenge students to engage in creative problem finding behaviors.    And I’m not anxious about saying that one bit!

My continued adventures with the Green Light Academy continue to exceed my expectations.  Tomorrow will be my last day before heading to Brazil to join my family on vacation.  Last night I was working on the program evaluation for submission for presentation at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting in Denver, CO for next April. 

I was analyzing some of the qualitative comments written by the students, and feel obligated to document them here.  They are demonstrating that learning through a guided inquiry approach has very wonderful rewards:

Student #1

We actually got to implement our ideas and be creative during the lab, too.  The research and the presentations which help our public speaking skills were nice things to do.  I think being able to successfully communicate is just as important as taking in information.

Student #2

At first I thought it was really hard to figure things out, because we didn’t get a lot of information.  But now I realize that I can figure things out myself and it really isn’t as hard as it initially seems if you just think about it and work things out.

Student #3

Another thing I like about this academy are the projects.  Even thought they were challenging, they were challenging only in the beginning. I loved going through the journey, of going through the clueless ideas, and then it turns to being so easy.

Thanks for validating me!

As part of the curriculum I developed for  Beacon Preservation’s Green Light Academy, students participated in a hands-on, minds-on activity to develop and build a small-scale solar still.  In true “guided inquiry” format, we gave the students some minor expository information about concepts of distillation for purifying salt water, and then asked them to design and build their own still using wood splints, plastic wrap, and different adhesives. 

I was absolutely amazed how engaged the students were.  They were building, asking questions, sketching, thinking, and really working hard.  They actually wound up working over an hour longer than we initially had planned.  No problems on my end.  When you are working with flexible time, and not confined to the “tyranny of the bell,” you can make great learning experiences occur.  Best of all, students were being creative, and NOT working under the traditional frameworks often associated with a science lab: 

• a clear, defined procedure,
• identifying variables, constants, and controls
• meticulous data collection

from: rael.berkeley.edu

I think science instruction often focuses on logical/analytical processes.  However, this was an engineering project – build, develop, deliver.   And although there were logical and analytical thoughts, there was more of an emphasis on creativity.  There was no one design that would work (the well-conceived (structured) question), but rather an unlimited number of possibilities (the ill-conceived (open-ended) question).  Many students were in awe that we, as teachers, did not have a “right” answer in mind.

What has bothered me, however, was the evidence.  I think I somewhat dropped the ball, because I didn’t plan well to document student learning.  Sure, I anecdotatly perceived student learning of concepts and creativity development, but how did I know it actually occurred?   I think it’s so important that we are able to show that students have, in fact, learned.  I have been thinking about ways to better document the concept learning and am curious about a good assessment method/mechanism for such a task.

I am program coordinating the Green Light Academy beginning next week.  This interdistrict, residential program will serve about 60 Connecticut High School students for FREE!  Today I conducted teacher training, and, as part of the training, we ran several experiments.  Being “GREEN” we didn’t pour the waste down the sink, but rather bottled it.  I am now beginning an game with the faculty and staff.  The bottle will be passed from one faculty or staff member to another.  This activity won’t involve the students. 

The rule, however, is that the receiving person can not know about it.  If the person sees the bottle coming, they should openly reject it.  In fact, I suspect that some of the recipients will not even know what they got until they read this post. 

When a person receives the bottle.  They are to post a comment here, identifying themselves, explaining an experience, idea, or thought about the program, so we can have a daily running log of different impressions of the Academy. 

This will be an informal way to randomly document events througouht the month.  I look forward to reading and hearing about staff and faculty experiences.

from: www.maine.gov

My colleagues and I have been attempting to develop a definition for inquiry literacy.  Undoubtedly embedded within that definition are effective reading and writing skills.  Others agree.  Thanks to D.B. for pointing me to this wiki, specifically focused on inquiry, reading, and writing.

http://tieconference.wikispaces.com/3206

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

I recently gave an objective test to my students on an Evolution Unit.  The test consisted of multiple choice questions and short answers.  I know many moan when they hear about multiple choice questions, and their groans are justified. 

 Part I:  You see, multiple choice questions often test isolated facts – a knowledge/comprehension type of assessment, fairly low on Bloom’s Taxonomy.  However, well written multiple choice questions can be more conceptual or analytical.  Students are challenged to apply their knowledge using higher order thinking skills.  This is what I strive for in my assessment strategies.

Part II:  Objective tests are often used as end-points to learning.  Teacher and students engage in learning activities which result in content and concept acquisition, which are then summatively assessed.  Learning stops prior to the assessment.  I’ve often wondered why learning had to stop there and why it couldn’t continue after an assessment was given.  In my case, I allow students to debate and vote for the best answer for multiple choice questions – which allows for even more higher order thinking.  Please note that I say “BEST” answer.  Since the questions are conceptual in nature, sometimes other answer choices are factually accurate, but don’t answer the question in the best possible way.  We get AWAY from right and wrong.  After the debate, some students are not necessarily in agreement with their peers, in which case, they have the option to write a response to justify their disagreement.  At the same time, those who decide that their answers were also not the best have the option to demonstrate their learning in writing, and earn credit back. 

I was recently impressed by this evolution test, and the high-quality thinking that was associated with their understanding of the evolution concepts.  Please note, these questions are short, yet they stimulate deep, sophisticated understanding of concepts.  Don’t believe me?  Read some student responses.  This is about empowering students to be independent, self-directed, critical thinkers.  My role is clearly the facilitator, NOT the knowledge disseminator.

My question:

2. Insects with wing mutations that prevent flight (e.g., in fruit flies, some flies have crumpled wings throughout their lives) usually can’t survive long in nature. Flightlessness is selected against. But in three of the following environments the trait could actually be selected for. In which environment would useless wings NOT be selected for?

     a. an island where stiff winds blow some flying insects out to sea, never to return.

   b. a swamp full of frogs that can see and catch flying insects better than crawling insects.

     c. a forest full of bats that catch and eat insects while in flight.

     d. a cage with predators, who crawl along the base

A student response, indicating that her answer was incorrect 

2.a The original answer selected was A, that insects with useless wings would not be selected for an island where stiff winds blow some flying insects out to sea, to never return. This answer was chosen because it seemed to be the worst environment for an insect with useless wings and the best environment for an insect with functional wings. This means that insects with functional wings would be selected for an environment where stiff winds blow while insects with useless wings would not be selected for this environment. Although insects with flying wings have the chance of flying out to sea in the winds, it was assumed that insects that could not fly would have a harder time escaping this stiff wind. This would make the environment more suitable to insects with functional wings. However this assumption was incorrect.

b. The class discussion involved many possible answers. There were various reasons behind each class member’s choice of answer. However, in the end, the possible answers were narrowed down to D, a cage with no predators, and E, a cage with slippery walls that insects cannot climb and an electrical screen on top that electrocutes insects that touch it. Reasoning behind D was that it was the most neutral answer. This environment would select insects with both functional and useless wings because food is readily available at low places which can be reached by both types of the insects. Reasoning behind E was that insects would have no source of food to survive on and therefore would not be selected. Finally, the class decided that D was the best answer because it suited both insects.

c. The correct answer is D. D is an environment in which both insects, with or without functional wings, would be selected. The question specifically asked in which environment -+–i useless wings would not be selected for. All other choices than D include situations where insects with useless wings would be selected for. In A, an island where stiff winds blow some flying insects out to sea, never to return, useless wings would keep an insect on the ground where it would be safe from the stiff winds. Therefore, the insects would be selected in this environment and A is not a correct choice. In B, a swamp full of frogs that can see and catch flying insects better than crawling insects, the insects with useless wings would have a better chance for survival over the insects with functional wings. Therefore, the insects with useless wings would be selected over insects with functional wings, so B is not a correct answer. In C, a forest full of bats that catch and eat insects while in flight, the insects with useless wings would not risk being caught because they do not fly while insects with wings do. Therefore, the insects with useless wings would be favored in this environment, so C is not the best answer. In E, a cage with slippery walls that insects cannot climb and an electrified screen on the top that electrocutes insects that touch it, insects with functional wings would try to fly to the top and then get electrocuted while insects with useless wings would remain safe on the bottom of the cage. Therefore, this environment would be favorable to insects with useless wings, so E is not the best answer. However, D is the best answer. In this environment, a cage with no predators in which food is provided in low dishes, neither of the insects, with or without functional wings, would be favored. Therefore, in this environment, insects with useless wings would not be selected over insects with functional wings.

My question:

7. A biologist studied a population of squirrels for 15 years. Over that time, the population was never fewer than 30 squirrels and never more than 45. Her data showed that over half of the squirrels born did not survive to reproduce, because of competition for food and predation. Suddenly, the population increased to 80. In a single     generation, 90% of the squirrels that were born lived to reproduce.  What inferences might you make about that population?

          1. The amount of available food probably increased.

          2. The number of predators probably decreased.

          3. The young squirrels in the next generation will show greater levels of variation than in the previous generations because squirrels that would not have survived in the past are now surviving.

     a. 1, 2, and 3 are correct.

     b. 1

     c. 2

     d. 3

     e. Both 1 and 2 are reasonable inferences.

 A student response indicating that she disagreed with the class’ conclusion.

7) a. The original answer chosen was a. 1, 2, and 3 are correct. This answer was chosen based upon the belief that , if a population increases suddenly, reasonable inferences to be drawn from the information given would be that there would be more variation in genes in that population, predation probably decreased, and the amount of food available probably increased.

b. The class discussion focused upon the fact that large populations tend to have a stable gene pool and therefore, according to the class, the correct answer to the question would be e. both 1 and 2 are reasonable inferences. The class agreed with the original answer in that the lack of predation and the increase in food would be reasonable inferences to draw from the information given.

c. The class discussion was not convincing, and the best answer is still a. 1, 2, and 3 are correct for various reasons. The class discussion was based upon the fact that the gene pool of large populations is stable, but this fact does not address the amount of variation within a population.

A large population might have a stable gene pool, but that gene pool will still have a great amount of variation. If a population of squirrels increases sharply due to a lack of predation and an abundance of food, squirrels that might not have favorable characteristics will have a better chance of procreating. This reproduction will increase the amount of genetic variation within the population. Endangered species have reduced genetic variation because the population is so small; this is because many of the traits that were not favorable were lost due to the loss of many of the species. The opposite would be true with a species that was allowed to greatly increase in population. Many unfavorable traits would be allowed to flourish and this would increase genetic variation. Therefore, a. 1, 2, and 3 are correct is the best answer to the question.