I’ve been struggling lately with my problem finding strategy. Am I considering looking at ill vs. well conceived projects or is it ill vs. well received projects?

It seems my criteria for selecting whether or not a project is “good” would be the external evaluation that a judge/judges conduct(s). These scores identify whether or not the project results/presentation are of high or low quality and meet the expectation of excellence as compared to the other reviewed projects. Is this final analysis a reflection of a good or bad problem selection/problem finding experience?

I go back and forth between my acceptance of this, but I think ultimately, a poorly received project that is examined by MULTIPLE sources is poorly conceived. Realistically, a good problem that is executed poorly by a student can be the results of a lack of support, mentorship, individual expertise, materials/instrument availablity, resources, time, etc., which by my construct would be a demonstration of poor problem finding, because it resulted in a poor product.

On another note, I have been using the term “ill conceived” – a term that is laced througout the creativity literature. (e.g. in order to promote creativity, students are posed with ill-conceived problems). Perhaps I need to rethink the terminology -> poorly conceived/received?

I was out shopping with my daughters the other day at Costco and bumped into my Advanced Placement Computer Science teacher from high school. It was great to see her, only for a few minutes, because it helped me to recall her class. I was a senior when I took the class and remember her to be the best math teacher I had ever had. What made her so great? She knew what she was doing and she had the practical experience to back it up.

Roberta was a programmer at MIT for a government project. (I always remember there was a bit of secrecy to what she did.) As she taught us to program, she taught us from personal experience. That personal experience made the projects we did more authentic. And, in fact, those projects tended to be very practical.

Point? The science research student, in an authentic, applied situation, benefits from the experience of a scientist, who may, in fact, be a science teacher. The nature of science can benefit well from students (or visa versa?) who get experiences that are situated in nature and have a cognitive apprenticeship period with an authentic master.

I made what I thought was a well thought out, elegant post yesterday, to my dismay to find out that I had a blogger server problem and lost the message. Distraught, I shut down the new Acer computer and went to bed. Acer, the genus for maple trees. Anyway . . .

I had a talk with the superintendent last week and towards the end, we discussed my dissertation ideas. I told him about the ill-conceived versus well-conceived problem. He made an interesting point about how much students can learn from the experience of working through a bad problem. Point well taken. However, I will differ with the following explanations.

If a student choses to participate in a science research experience where he or she presents the results of research to an outside audience, it is the duty of the project, and those involved with it to recognize that there is an authentic audience. In other words, this project is transcending the classroom walls. The project is not soley for the sake of the student completing it for the requirements of the course or the teacher. So, recognizing the authentic audience, an appropriate problem must be selected.

Those professionals viewing the project have a certain, high standard that must be met or exceeded. If the student does not recognize his or her audience then we are potentially left with which paper towel is the most absorbant. Every time I’ve seen this project, it is ALWAYS Viva!, but I digress . . .

So a problem can be ill-conceived because it won’t be received with gusto by the evaluation panel. This is not to say that students are not having a positive learning experience, it just suggests that the problem is not novel, applicable, or capable of providing a new scientific insight. Who determines the quality of the project then? The evaluators. Their scores will be reflective of what the student has done and its greater generalizability.

Who are the players? The student, the mentor, the teacher, the parent(s). Do I see some triangulation here?

This appears to be a qualitative study. It does not even seem to suggest a mixed methods anymore.

The purposeful selection will be from students who COMPLETE a project, present it at an authentic venue, and either have ill-conceived project ideas or well-conceived project ideas based on judging scores.

I had the chance to work with students this past week as part of Education Connection’s Pathways to Innovation program. Sue Q asked if I could work with students to flush out ideas for their potential research projects: mess finding at its best. I was very pleased with how well the session went – some really challenging ideas. Some students are so stuck on the basic idea of IV w/ 2 levels. This is so hard to break. The ideas develop too simply.

My interpretation? Instead of hanging out in the mess for a longer period of time, students are trying to get to the problem finding stage too quickly. Results? An ill-conceived problem.

So is this it then? A qualitative study comparing ill-conceived problems to well conceived problems – how students get there and what it all means. Mixed method study looking at some factors of the students? Science Research Temperament? Nature of Science?

I recently had the pleasure to attend the national competition for the Stockholm Junior Water Prize in Atlanta, GA. 42 students and either their teacher or parents converged on the Sheraton Atlanta for what is called “the most prestigious award for water research.” This was a very cathartic experience for me. It is so rare for me to meet and have LOTS of time to talk to teachers who do science research with their students. Only Ray and AJ seem to be into this action in Connecticut and we only meet up for brief periods of time, several times per year.

What did I notice? Great student projects as usual. Smart, well prepared, excited students. But those teachers . . . They had a lot in common. They all seemed to be researchers at one time or another. Wow. How many times have I commented on how you can become a science teacher, get a masters in a scientific field, or whatever and NEVER have a research experience? Yet, here are these teachers, in effect, very successful, and they ALL have done it.

I spoke with some teachers from areas that some metro people might consider “backwoods,” but they are just as on track and knowledgeable about research as anyone I have ever met.

What do I conclude? Teachers of successful research students HAVE DONE research. They have lived the experience and they transfer that experience to their students.

I was lucky to have the amazing opportunity to attend.

I wrote a post while at the ISEF, but there were network problems at the hotel. So here I sit today on the last day of classes preparing to restate an impression.

I had the opportunity to interview Jason and Pratishka and during the discussion, (recorded). I noted a very important element that both thought were critical to their success: the opportunity to learn techniques, mess around, learn equiptment, BEFORE actually conducting a study. Both students were given these opportunities by their mentors before a formal project was in place. Both thought the process was critical to their success because they had developed the necessary expertise to conduct a sophisticated project.

This leads me to think about Brown, et al. and the situated congition model. In situated congition, students learn best in an authentic setting working on real problems. OK, no problem, I thought this theoretical model was a fit with the research program model from the first time it was discussed in my Learning and Cognition class. But what stands out is the “cognitive apprenticeship” aspect. In order for students to be truly successful in a stituated session, they must advance from neophytes/novices, to some level of expertise.

Interesting . . . .

Welcome to the 57th International Science and Engineering Fair in very international Indianapolis, Indiana. After arriving by jet plane, we took the five Connecticut finalists to the exhibition hall to set up their projects. Each adult was assigned to a student; I, of course, to Drew. Jonathan, Jason, and Alex were almost instantaneously finished. Each had a completed board – Jonathan and Jason were actually printed on one large page and affixed to the board. Drew had decided to increase the size of his board, and also wanted to include some new information that he had after the project was shipped. His initial “affixing” of the pages was somewhat disheveled. It was not asthetically pleasing. I helped him reorganize so there was a logical and attractive flow. He had to reprint several pages due to spelling mistakes.

Pratishka was busy reassembling as well. Choosing almost every color of the rainbow, she affixed her pages to very colored paper. It had a fun, but jumbled feel to it. I think it works well and it matches her perky personality. Sandy and Pratishka were struggling on how to affix the two boards together, but I quickly disassembled a booth so we could have some clean material to lay the project down on and folded some cardboard to a structurally appropriate form, taped it with duct tape and finished the setup.

Message? Students do things in very different ways. Each will have a finished product – the way they got there was very different. Drew’s procrastinating tendencies were actually rationalized based on what we had done the previous week in the lab.

I recently completed and received approval for an IRB proposal to study exemplary science research students. The study will be qualitative. I am hoping to find an insight into their creative processes that I have not noticed or have overlooked. Perhaps a pattern in the students’ responses will lead me better. I am taking Ralph’s advice: put your questions to nature. So what is high school scientific creativity and how do we promote it? I think the key is to ask questions that are relevant to creative thought as well as the nature of science. I think I will bring the USRT as well, and have the students complete that.

Here is the current question battery:

The Process

Describe the process you went through to get your idea for your research project. How did you go from a general idea, to a focused problem/project? What were some of the rewards? Obstacles?
What are some of the frustrations with research?
What kind of advice would you give to another student who wanted to conduct research?
Many students conduct research, yet your project was selected to represent the state of Connecticut? What makes you more successful than all of the other students?

Creativity

What is creativity?
Are science and creativity related?
How are you creative?
When are you creative?

The Scientist

What are some words to describe a scientist?
What are some words that don’t describe a scientist?
What does a scientist look like?
How are scientists different/similar from artists/musicians? Journalists? Politicians? Wait staff? Salespeople?
How are you different/similar to students who don’t conduct research, but may be of similar intellect?How are you different/similar to students who do research but have less experience than you do?
How are you different/similar to your mentor?
If you were going to run a lab, what would it be like?

I am currently working on revising the SRT Scale or Science Research Temperament Scale. The instrument was developed in the 1950’s by William Kosinar, who I am having an exceedingly difficult time finding. Perhaps I should try a “Yahoo!” people search as the Google and EBSCO searches have been quite uneventful. I have updated some of the vocabulary to conform with today’s vernacular. I focus-grouped with a group of seniors who rated all of the trait-words on the instrument for clarity and understanding. We concluded that 5 were not very clear and came up with alternatives.

I then had a larger group of sophomores rate the dichotomous word pairs for their favorites (e.g. easy of understanding, clarity, etc.) They only decisively picked three from the new list, one was a pretty even split, and the last original was actually preferred over the updated. I will change four and leave the one alone.

I am thinking I would like to do a validity/reliability study on the new version of the instrument. Perhaps Art can help me out by providing me with students in a General Chem class(es) at UConn. There are 42 items on the instrument so a quick cacluation says I need between 252 and 420 students for the Pilot. I should talk to Marcy and see what she thinks. Also would need IRB approval. I don’t think there are enough students at WSCU in large enough groups to make this worthwile – thus the UConn connection.

Welcome to my first “true” blog. Although I have many others, including the award-winning “Applied Science Research,” “CP Bio” “Blog-a-blog” and others (See full listing at labanca.net), I have decided to be reflective as I begin working on my Ed.D. dissertation at Western Connecticut. I will provide a link through the professional resources section of my website.

I am planning to follow the traditional blog posting style and hope my personality and ideas emerge. I welcome comments and suggestions as this journey begins over the next several years.