Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘science

The headlines highlighted in this tweet are why we need:

  • science and experts.
  • to be information and media literate.
  • to follow entities outside our bubbles.

Forbes and NASA have experts that are good at what they do. Both provided commentary on a shared observation. Only one was actually informative — NASA.

If we were information and media literate — collectively digitally literate — we would be skeptical of Forbes’ report and know how to investigate the issue. We would then find NASA’s version of the event and we would be able to evaluate what we find.

Operating outside our bubbles allows us to see what others see. Operate in the Forbes or entertainment bubble and we see only mystery or ignorance. Operate in the scientific bubble and we see more factual information.

That said, I follow You Had One Job on Twitter because it is funny. It is also provocative in that it helps me make critical connections. So while being digitally literate and sourcing expertise are important, it helps to first operate outside one’s bubble.

Some might say that the YouTube video below is a good example of combining science and art.


Video source

I agree. I would also add that such a combination creates perspective. This could mean helping us see what we could not before or seeing something unexpected as a result of the combination.

What we see projected as a shadow is another subtle message — there is one entity with severals sides, each of which is only apparent when we make the effort to change the perspective.

There is a thin line between simplifying something and dumbing it down. We do both for kids and students, but I wonder if we know where the line is.

Video source
Original source (removed)

This was a sweet video of a father trying to help his young son deal with the recent and terrible attacks in Paris. In trying to explain that flowers had power over guns, he simplified very complex societal and world issues.


Video source

This is an entertaining video about rocket science without using words from rocket science. I think it makes a sneaky point that you can only dumb things down so far.

If we simplify to the point of dumbing down, we might be entertained, but we might not actually learn something useful.

It is easy to dumb down. It is not easy to simplify.

Simplifying.

This week I read a good critique of the way some science teachers in Singapore design test questions and grade them. The issues were a misplaced emphasis on rote learning (instead of inquiry) and the poor use of language (English and scientific) in setting test questions.

A parent wrote in to the ST Forum with a suggestion:

There seems to be something inherently wrong with how science is taught in primary schools today. Perhaps the time is ripe for a systemic review of the curriculum to address all these concerns.

This suggestion will not work alone. Curricular reviews and revisions tend to focus on content. That is only one piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
 

 
To see the whole picture, one needs to also factor in how teachers teach an academic subject (which is a function of pedagogy), and how they unlearn old habits in favour of learning new ones (professional development, leadership, incentives, and more).

A seemingly superficial or simple problem like stupid test questions or stubborn teacher behaviour has complex roots. The layperson does not dig as far and is not expected to. The real problem is when some schools, their leaders, and/or their teachers are not aware that they need to dig deep too.

Sometimes I wonder if the conversations that my wife and I have over dinner and YouTube videos have any impact on my son.

Yes, we watch YouTube videos and not television programmes over dinner. We talk about them and we unconsciously model communication and thinking skills for our son. This was not obvious to me until a recent father-son chat.

Every weekday I ask my son about his school day and his homework. Practically every day the answers are the same: Meh, boring, and arrgh!

 
Except one day. My son asked me why he had to perform science experiments to answer questions they already knew the answers to.

How many teachers or research scientists ask themselves this question? It was a particularly good question because it critiqued the purpose of doing experiments and the strategy for teaching science.

The standard response to this question might revolve around learning or practising the scientific method. But the core issue is really about whether the focus is developing a discipline or being driven by curious discovery.

Any good teacher would want his/her students to have both. That said, I would wager that most teachers would err on the side of content delivery and disciplined thinking. But what if the teaching of science as a discipline takes out the joy of discovery?

This is one reason why we have the dichotomy of formal learning in school and informal learning elsewhere. There are rules, methods, and objectives in school, but they typically suck the life out of learning.

Outside of school the learning is looser and practically undisciplined in the sense that it does not start or end with subject silos, specific instructional objectives, or time-tested strategies.

The latter sort of learning is like how a child catches values, listening skills, and thinking skills at a daily setting like dinner conversation.

We need both formal and informal channels, of course. But I would err on the side of the informal if they are going to help my son develop the mindset he needs for his future.

If reality can bite, then Science must be its teeth.


Video source

This video is an introduction to an excellent TED Education series. The lessons were designed by Joy Lin, wonderfully narrated by James Arnold Taylor, and animated by Cognitive Media.

So would you rather have super size, super strength, or super speed? Perhaps being able to fly, become invisible, or be immortal are more up your alley.

Spoiler alert: Science will ground you in reality. But the more you know, the better. And you can wish for some other super ability.


Video source

I enjoyed this video on Physics concepts simply because it was not delivered in the usual way.

There was no blackboard, no talking head, no PowerPoint.

Instead there were conversations, stories, interviews, anecdotes, and mini lessons.

If there were questions from a learner, they could be dealt with independently or in a classroom context. The questions or curiosity would be sparked by something said during the staged event or from an experience. The need to learn would not come from a fixed curriculum or paper test requirements.

In other words, the need know would drive the learning. The series of tests, all devoid of context, would not. This is the new and better way to teach.


http://edublogawards.com/files/2012/11/finalistlifetime-1lds82x.png
http://edublogawards.com/2010awards/best-elearning-corporate-education-edublog-2010/

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code


Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

Archives

Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: