Update to June 5th reading for HB

I think that these readings address something that we struggled a bit with in class. The idea that especially in high school science, we are focused so much on content that we forget how fundamental the literacy foundation is. When a high school teacher is faced with the problem that a student may not have enough the basic reading skills to focus on content himself or herself… what do we do? It seems that all teachers are reading teachers at anytime. I recall working at the zoo and having a girl (about 9 years old) tell me that she wanted to be a biologist and what should she concentrate on a school? What would help her the most? I wasn’t even considering being a teacher yet, however my immediate reaction was “I’m a scientist and I can tell you the most important thing to get really good at is reading. I read everyday, papers, journals, notes and without excellent reading and writing skills my job would be very hard.”

Literacy and science are fundamentally intertwined. We can’t escape it. This is quite a realization for a student teacher like myself because I could probably choose to ignore that in order to make things easier for me. But, the only way to get away with that is to leave those students behind that need me the most.

Science!!

After reading the article by Lee i was thinking that the author i guess is making a lot of fuss about nothing!! And what leads me to think this way is that 2 of my uncles came to U.S. more than 30 years back and both of them did their ph.ds here and one of them is teaching in U.O.R. in medical building and is doiung research and the other was teaching in an engineering college in Detroit, wrote books and was a known scientist in the university. I have 6 cousins of mine who are doctors in U.S.  and 2 of them canme recently from India after completing their doctoral studies in India. And believe me it is not easy to do so. My husband is an engineer and did his masters here in US and myself am doing my Masters here. So, i guess i have a pretty good history of people i know who have been successful in the realms of science while i have not yet counted my 2nd cousins and my friends..Infact myexperience has been great as far as acceptance is concerned. i worked for almost 2 years in medical bulding of UOR and did research and my opinions and knowledge has always been respected. OK, for the people who don’t know me, i am an indian and been in US for just 5 years.In the article by Norris and Phillips, i was fascinated by something sideline to the main article that is-the views about literacy.it istrue that if we ask the question that what is literacy-many people would define it to be ‘reading and writing’. But there is a lot more to it.Literacy is about being able to understand what the author is trying to say in the text, the meaning behind it.and for this matter, it may not only be a text, it may be a picture or some other form of representation of one’s thoughts. so, literacy is more about understanding each other and about building knowledge. and it was fascinating how the author linked this to the field of science!! The article by Shammos was thought provoking for me!! And i came to the conclusion that may be that i have not much experience in the field of sciencve teaching so i don’t know much of the facts presented here but from the facts that are presented i was cought by one main idea that what is the prpose of science in schools??to make scientifically literate students or to attract students in to science or both??

Review of Science Media.

I am not a practicing teacher at the moment and this article to me was an introduction of a new topic that is very relevant to teaching science in the classroom that i will encounter when i am teaching. And as always i am so excited to know things that are new to me and that i will be using while teaching.I guess unlike some other collegues of mine i would certaily agree on the point of exposing the students to the various Science media. Most of the students today or tomorrow will come across these media for advances and news in science more than journal articles. And what better time to help them to become capable of critically analyse these media than in schools!! I am not sure how much time does the school allow for all of this but certainly introducing the kids to all kinds of sources would make them scientific literate citizens. And ofcourse, it is the responsibility of the teachers to help them analyse these media and once they are out of school they are capable of reading news on science or a magazine sciene articlecritically, whether or not they chose to remain in the science field.Also, for studying for my final paper, i was introduced to the term – Review of Science Media and i woul like to add some of my research in the blog for all to read.Research in a theses (Bardeen, Karen) reveals that by using an inquiry based, coherent and integrated approach towards learning science and by analyzing science from popular media-magazine articles and TV and Radio programs would help foster an interest in students for the real world problems and develop abilities to be scientifically literate citizens. Personalizing science by giving the students the control of their own research and by giving them the time and freedom to refer to information about the research from not only the articles from the popular journals but also from news, internet and some popular magazines would develop an interest in the student which in turn would lead the student to read more and to do more science. Reviewing science media would develop ability in the students to explain main ideas, develop main ideas with valid supporting statements, and critically read and analyze articles. Research in the thesis (Bardeen, Karen) reveals that by using an inquiry based approach coupled with the students reviewing different kinds of science media developed an ability in the students to read a Science article more critically, identifying main points, explaining evidence, and stating conclusions. Students improved the quality of other questions they wished to answer about the issue and what officials might do to address the issue. Thus, if the students are given an inquiry based approach towards science and given the freedom and access towards a variety of science media, it would not only raise the students’ interest and thus push him/her towards more reading but also make him/her a more aware and a critical science reader.

June 26 reading

This article reminds me of several aspects of my student teaching.  One was when my cooperating teacher had the Democrat and Chronicle delivered to her classroom about once every two weeks.  She used this opportunity to have the students find any science article in the paper and had the students read them.  I enjoyed seeing this happen within the schools, but I did see the need for this activity to be more situated within “true science”.  By this I mean, the activity needed to dive deeper into what the students were reading, does it relate the earth science, is it true, where can we find holes in the articles, etc.  This comes back to the critical thinking skill that everyone talks about. 

 

A second aspect of my student teaching was bringing up current earth science events that are in the news.  Pete mentioned this in class last night.  He eluded to the idea that the curriculum has driven teaching so much that instruction can’t waiver to address these current events.  I think earth science needs to use these annual events to help motivate students and to think crucially on a certain topic because of the quick bombardment of media attention and false science.   

An extreme example…

I sat down to enter my thought and found that I am continuing with the pitfalls of using news and popular media in the classroom. A teacher needs to be literate in their own field in order to view such information critically. For example…

Men are smarter than women, Scientist Claims

Men are smarter than women, according to a controversial new study that adds another cinder to the fiery debate over whether gender impacts general intelligence. Recent studies from psycologist J. Philippe Rushton, however, have raised questions about the validity of this claim, he said. One such study showed that men have larger brains than women, a 100 gram difference after correcting for body size. Rushton found similar results in a study of gender and brain size. To determine if there was a link between gender and intelligence, and perhaps between brain size and intelligence, Rushton and a colleague analyzed the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores from 100,000 17- and 18-year-olds. When Rushton and colleagues weighted each SAT question by an established general intelligence factor called the g-factor, they discovered that males surpassed females by an average of 3.6 IQ points.
The g-factor uses only the tough questions in the test. “If I tell you the last four digits of my telephone number and ask you to repeat them back to me, that’s a low g-loaded memory test,” Rushton explained. “But if I then ask you to repeat them back to me in the reverse order, that suddenly requires a tremendous amount more cognitive processing. It is a very high loaded g-item.” Rushton suspects that the results are due to males having more brain tissue than females on average. “It’s a very reasonable hypothesis that you just need more brain tissue dedicated to processing high ‘g’ information,” Rushton said.

-Live Science.com, September 8, 2006

So lets think about this for a moment:

There is a problem. This study included 10,000 more females than males. Poorly structured subject groups can deeply alter the statistical result of 3.6 IQ points. The IQ test, though refined over the past 80 years, is also flawed enough that cognitive scientists use it only to place research subjects into very generalized groups. When further reduced to an eye-catching headline, the story possesses little scientific value. The fact is, there is only the most general correlation to brain size and intelligence and certainly no evidence of that factor within conspecific species. “Big brain equals smart animal,” is a popular myth. It might be better explained as “Right brain for the right environment equals smart animal.” In addition, evidence is showing that cell density is as significant as volume depending on the are of the brain being studied.

However, it cannot be said that there are not sex differences in brains. In songbirds that are sexually dimorphic relative to song, there are whole areas of the brain and related nerve tracts that simply do not exist in the females (gram for gram, they weigh the same). Yet, when you attempt to relate generalized use of homologous brain areas to gender, particularly in the elegant and deeply evolved human brain, you are not hopping off the plane to a tropical paradise of discovery but, rather a hot, sticky, jungle where everything stings and bites. Be very careful you packed the right experiment.

Perhaps, someday (soon), neuroscientists will provide us with a gender blueprint that could neatly tell us what it means to be male or female beyond the chromosome. It is all truly chemical. It is absolutely true that my brain is chemically different than before I sat down to type this page. Your brain is chemically different for having read it. However, any claim to quantify intelligence or inherent ability within the species’ sexes, no matter how compelling the headline, needs to be tempered with criticism and an honest assessment of experimental design.

Furthermore, though this headline ended up on Yahoo! news and CNN, I looked into J. Philippe Rushton. He is president of the Pioneer Fund, listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. In addition he speaks frequently on eugenics and writes for the “American Renaissance” magazine and “VDARE” an anti-immigration organization. David Suzuki protested Rushton’s racial theories and spoke out against Rushton in a live televised debate at the University of Western Ontario. “There will always be Rushtons in science,” Suzuki said “and we must always be prepared to root them out!”. “Oh, no!” exclaimed Rushton when asked if he himself believed in racial superiority. He went on to explain that “from an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value–if it even means this. And we’ve got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments.”

Criticisms within the field go on and on and yet, this was not mentioned in any of the popular media reports about how it is scientifically proven that men are smarter than women. I personally feel the original reporter should be ashamed.

Imagine bringing such a compelling article into the classroom without checking out both the science and the politics. We as teachers are in a position or authority, as scientists that authority is culturally enhanced. Imagine the effect that would have on the students’ perception of what they are capable of accomplishing. I feel the lesson here is not the science but the criticism. If we bring this popular information into the classroom is needs to be structured within a framework of scientific scrutiny.

Science Literacy for TEACHERS first

I am going to revert back to a theme that I have identified in my writings during this course (especially during the annotated bibliography) and that is, the need to have science literate teachers before students can be expected to follow suit. While I read this article, I thought about the frequency with which I use newspaper and magazine articles in my class room (3-4 times per month) and how I pick them. Typically, I find articles that are well-written, pertain to the subject at hand, and are based in valid science. I think this practice is important in making the connection between the “real world” and science and to help make students able to intelligently ingest science writing. However, I can also see this being dangerous and harmful to student health if the articles were selected and taught by teachers who didn’t know what they were talking about. There are a lot of articles, especially in the newspaper, based on BS science. If a teacher is not teaching his/her students how to CRITICALLY analyze and read an article because he/she does no know whether the science is valid, this could be a dangerous practice and that teacher would be better off sticking to science texts. I think of it being parallel to doing research on a college database vs the World Wide Web, one requires much more filtering and, therefore, a more critical eye.

An example that I can think of where alternative/popular medium was used to the detriment of students was this year in a history class. The teacher showed students a “documentary” on youtube called Loose Change. The premise of the movie was that on 9.11.01, the World Trade Center was brought down by demolition charges and the Pentagon was hit by a missile, not an airplane. Their “evidence” was presented by self-proclaimed scientists. The documentary was very convincing to the uneducated or naive mind. One student even said to me, “well the scientists showed equations and stuff, so it has to be real.” I had a discussion with three students who were thoroughly convinced that this movie explained what really happened on 9.11 and I could not convince them otherwise. Thinking that perhaps I was too emotionally involved to have been clear, that night I printed out a 15 page article from Popular Mechanics which debunked the 9.11 conspiracy theories (including all of those presented in Loose Change). This article contained legitimate scientists and reliable sources and theories. When I showed these students the article the next day, they did not even want to look at it. The format was as sexy as a youtube movie and therefore was not convincing to them. In this case, the alternative media did a huge disservice to these students due to the fact that it was presented in an irresponsible manner… uncritically.

Sorry for the long story, but I keep this in mind when I use articles and movie clips because it reminds me about the awesome responsibility and impact that we can have on students. I think it is very important to use articles, but we must do it carefully and make sure that those people using them are responsible and scientifically literate.

Science in the News

This was a nice choice for a final reading assignment. The authors summarized ”contemporary” definitions of scientific literacy to include an understanding of: basic science facts, science practices and methods and finally interrelationships among science, technology, society and the environment (STS or STSE). Of course, there are nuances and details missing, but that is a great summation.

Then the article took us full circle to a discussion we had the very first day. Dawn asked us in the first class to define literacy and we spent some time talking about reading and writing as a definition of literacy and haven’t spent much time on that simplistic definition since. The authors, however, cleverly bring that literal and fundamental aspect of literacy back into the mix with the expectation that it will assit the students attain the broader literacy we expect. Since news accounts (in various media) will form the bulk of what citizens encounter after school, it should follow that teachers (and policy makers) would recognize their importance and include these types of literacy events in their classes.

This study of teaching practices in Alberta, Canada showed common usage of news accounts in the classroom, with the most common reasoning for doing so being demonstration of relevance. Many teachers seemed to be missing the greater implication that giving students the opportunity to read, discuss and otherwise analyze articles gives them valuable literacy skills for both impending exams and future experiences.

Not suprisingly, teachers listed time constraints as the most common barrier to using news accounts in the classroom.  The authors suggest that when policy makers specifically state the need for using current “popular” literature in the classroom, this constraint may be lessened. In fact, they make the statement that “policy lags behind practice” in some classrooms. And it was that line that led me on many tangents…..

I will spare you all the trip down memory lane with me as I spent a long drive yesterday thinking mostly about this article and the how it related to my evolving teaching practices over the years. It was when I realized that I finished my first year of public school teaching exactly 20 years ago that my mind began to wander to all sorts of tangents (must be old age!). I will share this one story though in regards to policy and practice:

I was hired in 1986 to teach in a small district in the Catskill Mountains of NY (512 students K-12). A major science issue in the news at the time was AIDS. The brand new Health teacher and I were brought into the Vice Principal’s office that first fall and asked to come up with an AIDS curriculum for the school. He handed us a list of words and terms that were NOT allowed to be used in the classroom. I no longer remember all of them, but we couldn’t even MENTION condom, homosexuality, anal sex, etc. This was back in the day when the term “gay cancer” was still being used by some as a term for AIDS. Well, we rebelled. But remember, we were first year teachers and had no clue how far we could push this. We got the VP to agree that IF a student asked a question and we needed to use one of the “forbidden words” to answer the question, we could do that. And that is where news article accounts came in. In this case, the Health teacher would get around the ridiculous policy by having the students read an article and then answer the questions that arose. For me, I just stood up in front of class one day and said “I can’t talk about condoms unless one of you asks me about them.” and one of the kids said “Why do you want to talk about condoms?” and I didn’t stop talking for 40 minutes…….

I remember they simply had no clue about the whole fluid transfer thing. That many of them thought it was the act of drug use or giving blood or having certain kinds of sexual contact that simply caused some Lamarckian (take that spellchecker!) creation of AIDS. But more importantly, that is the first time I worked with the Health teacher. We ended up finding out we had a lot in common. We have been together ever since. Now you know the rest of the story……

my own rant about why science has to be, well, so sciency.

When I saw the statistic from Shamos and the one Heather quoted “5-10 % will be into science 90-95% will not”, I was reminded that that is probably true, but why?  Of course there are a lot of other interests in this world, which probably explains for much of the stats, but I wonder how much true science turns off youth.  In schools, we try to promote science literacy through the scientific methods and by having students modeling scientists.  I absolutely believe that this type of science education is the way to go, but showing students “real” science can be a turn off.  The scientific report about the herbivores and plant growth is “real” science.  Being science literate (self-proclaimed), I had a hard time understanding the report.  To my benefit, I am able to critically think about the report and dissect meaning from pretty much everything in it.  Not being verse the language of biology, I would have to spend hours to fully understand everything in it.  So, my question is, why does science literacy have to be so difficult?”  I believe that this article could be reworded to have the same meaning, but a lot more people could understand it.  I think that a niche market exists in differing forms of science where they each want to demonstrate their intelligence, its not needed.  In my current job at an environmental engineering job, I have an easy time creating intelligent science reports for some of our clients who are not scientists.  So why can’t reports like the one we just read on herbivores be presented in a less sciency language?  Or is science so beyond anyone’s comprehension unless you have studied it for years that it needs to be portrayed in a manner that only fellow specific science colleagues can understand it?  I don’t know, but this seems to push people away rather than draw them to it.

A little rant…

Norris and Smith:
What I found most interesting about this article was that when I was searching for literacy sources for the annotated bibliography I unearthed a terminology problem almost immediately. “Science” and “literacy” revealed very different research than “science literacy.” This is the epistemology discussed in the Norris and Smith article and it readied me to wonder what kind of literacy we would explore in class discussions; the fundamental literacy or the competency of knowledge, rather civic service literacy. This leads me to Shamos…

Shamos:
I have a few problems with this article. Shamos thoughtfully established meaning and consequence in tracing the evolution and characterization of science literacy. It seems to me that in practical, classroom terms, as a teacher I may have to discern the type of science literacy I need to teach; cultural science literacy, functional or “true.” The type and the degree may differ from class to class and student to student. After all, according to Shamos, 5-10% of my students will be interested in careers in science and 95-90% will not. But I do take exception to a couple points. First, the definition of “true” science literacy smacks of the very same elitist perception of science as a Western, male endeavor that the Lee article discusses as well as the very same concern stated in Shamos as a distinction in illiteracies. Second, I was concerned how quickly the author dismissed the problem of students gaining science literacy in school then loosing said literacy in adulthood. I do not deny the problem, though I did not entirely grasp the evidence, however, couldn’t this be more a problem of relevancy rather than literacy? If science is taught in relevant terms to a student’s life, culture, locality and experience they may be more likely to maintain that knowledge.

Also, in the litany of why science literacy is relevant (military, DNA, industrialization, medical) did anyone else notice the glaring omission of pollution, environment and/or climate change? Even for 1995 this surprises me.

Lee:
My only concern with this article is that it takes for granted that science has not always been, and some may argue is still not, the primary habit of mind for Western civilization. Western culture was born of myth as much as any culture.

Shamos Shames Us into Thinking Harder…

Man oh man! No article in this class pushed my buttons harder than this one. On top of a message I didn’t want to hear, the author seemed way too arrogant for me. Too many absolute statements and other lines such as “It is obvious…” were on the first page to leave any doubt that Shamos was certain of his convictions. It took me quite a while to get through this entire reading and I am grateful for the effort. In the end, I agree with Shamos more than I would like to admit.

The one flaw I can see in his theory is this: At what point in a person’s life do they KNOW science is for them? As a community college instructor, I interact with students of all ages and abilities. Some are in college for the first time, others are there after successful (or not so successful!) careers and college experiences elsewhere. Shamos never mentions if there is any evidence that exposure to sciences promotes a positive outlook on science as a potential career or avocation. His dismissal of “Physics for Poets, Kitchen Chemistry and Biology for Living” as merely ways to fill seats in college classes to justify larger equipment budgets is far too cynical for me to agree with him. It seems that he is advocating that science is only necessary for those with an aptitude for it; those that plan to go into the field professionally. When does that happen? 8th grade? Earlier? Certainly not later. He takes great pains to explain how poorly the general public fairs on tests of scientific literacy. Did I miss the part where he showed the reader examples of what we would be like without the science education we have now?

No, I can accept his harsh assessment of scientific literacy and the failure of us to achieve that lofty goal for the general public. But I am unwilling to say that science is not necessary for college students in non-science majors.